I'm not fundamentally against the death penalty. Like a lot of others, I'm kind of against it, because there is just to much abuse in how it's applied, to many 99-1 shots being sent to death (by that I mean small chance they are innocent).
But there is just something fundamentally wrong with sending an old man who might have no idea where they are at to an execution.
It isn't the 99 - 1 shots that bother me most, although the do bother me, it's the 0 - 100 shots, you know the guys that are innocent according to DNA, who end up on death row and being executed.
In the past 50 years there have been only 3 individuals executed by the Federal government. Tim McVeigh and John Raul Garza in 2001 and Louis Jones, Jr. in 2003. An execution is not likely to happen anytime in the near future. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not have the drugs to carry out a legal execution.
Personally, I miss the good old-fashioned punishment of banishment. Unfortunately there's not enough inhospitable wilderness for it to be effective in the modern world. But perhaps we could seal off some appropriate area, say, New Jersey, and send all the lifers and death row inmates with no provisions or tools, (wasn't there a movie about this?) so that only the strongest and most resourceful/intelligent would survive. It would be televised of course as a reality show, with outsiders placing bets on their favorite inmates. The last survivor of course would be set free in an internationally televised event, with a grand ceremony on par with the Olympics...
I sometimes like to imagine a system that can sentence the Ken Layes and Bernie Madoffs of the world to periods of enforced homelessness. That's kind of like banishment.
And would have never come into contact with him. According to sources (some cited earlier in this thread) prisoners in a Supermax prison spend 23 hours a day in solitary, and get one hour for exercise, which they conduct in a locked room alone. The only human contact they get is with the guards escorting them to and from the exercise room.
In the case of Tsarnaev, I'm comfortable with that punishment over the death penalty. I can't help but think that this is ultimately what he wanted (I guess we'll find out if he doesn't mount an appeal) and, considering the area I work in, I also can't help but think that it might possibly spur a response from elements overseas inimical to the US. Is it certain? By no means; but unlikely or no, I have to consider all possible responses to something like this. It's part of my job. And there is a real possibility that one of the Muslim extremist groups overseas could decide to retaliate for killing Tsarnaev in some fashion as yet undetermined.
I think the possibility that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's execution will spur retaliatory terrorist attacks is fairly low.
One reason I think this is because of his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The older brother appears to have been a genuine jihadist, a very devout Muslim, he had visited Chechnya and possibly met with jihadist factions while there. He was on the FBI's watch list. Yet Tamerlane was not only shot and killed by police, they even managed to run him over with a police vehicle as he lay dying in the street. If that didn't spur a retaliatory attack -- and so far as we know it hasn't -- I don't see Dzhokhar's execution spurring one either.
I think the possibility that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's execution will spur retaliatory terrorist attacks is fairly low.
One reason I think this is because of his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The older brother appears to have been a genuine jihadist, a very devout Muslim, he had visited Chechnya and possibly met with jihadist factions while there. He was on the FBI's watch list. Yet Tamerlane was not only shot and killed by police, they even managed to run him over with a police vehicle as he lay dying in the street. If that didn't spur a retaliatory attack -- and so far as we know it hasn't -- I don't see Dzhokhar's execution spurring one either.
Tamerlan was shot by police, but he was run over by Dzhokhar as he fled the scene; given that his brother was likely the killer of Tamerlan, it negates the whole being shot by the police aspect. You're also forgetting the manifesto he wrote on the wall of the boat while in the standoff with police; he seemed pretty damn passionate about the whole matter. Tamerlan was killed in the heat of battle, so to speak; it makes sense that they wouldn't retaliate specifically for his death, since they have men die on the "field of battle" on a daily basis. Dzhokhar, on the other hand, is being deliberately executed. That puts an entirely different spin on the matter, from an intelligence perspective, which is the perspective I have to put things in due to the area I work in. And the fact is, although it may not be splashy, and it may only warrant a footnote in the news because it wasn't splashy, it is entirely likely that Americans will be targeted over Dzhokhar's death, if and when it reaches that point. I'm not saying it's necessarily likely, but it is a possibility, and it has to be considered.
One reason I think this is because ISIS is using social media not only to actively recruit volunteers to come to Syria to join their jihad, but is also encouraging people to carry out the jihad wherever they live, if traveling to Syria is impractical. The recent incident in Texas is an example of this kind of attack. It's not the first, and I expect the rate of such attacks to increase in the US.
I guess it's not quite true that I expect Tsarnaev's execution to "spur" retaliatory attacks. I don't think ISIS cares much about Tsarnaev, except possibly as a propaganda object. What I expect to spur "retaliatory" attacks is young male anomie and existential angst, exacerbated by the 1% envy paradigm, and given hope of relief by ISIS in the form of a grander struggle that offers meaning and power to an otherwise meaningles, powerless existence.
So I figure, sooner or later, some asshat will murder in the name of Islamist jihad, and they will cite Tsarnaev's execution as the justification for their violence. I also figure that the citation will promptly be accepted by a growing crowd of useful idiots, who will then use it as a basis to argue against executing other jihadist asshats. In that sense, I think it's almost certain that Tsarnaev's excution will "spur" "retaliatory" attacks.
Personally, I miss the good old-fashioned punishment of banishment. Unfortunately there's not enough inhospitable wilderness for it to be effective in the modern world. But perhaps we could seal off some appropriate area, say, New Jersey, and send all the lifers and death row inmates with no provisions or tools, (wasn't there a movie about this?) so that only the strongest and most resourceful/intelligent would survive. It would be televised of course as a reality show, with outsiders placing bets on their favorite inmates. The last survivor of course would be set free in an internationally televised event, with a grand ceremony on par with the Olympics...
I think the possibility that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's execution will spur retaliatory terrorist attacks is fairly low.
One reason I think this is because of his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The older brother appears to have been a genuine jihadist, a very devout Muslim, he had visited Chechnya and possibly met with jihadist factions while there. He was on the FBI's watch list. Yet Tamerlane was not only shot and killed by police, they even managed to run him over with a police vehicle as he lay dying in the street. If that didn't spur a retaliatory attack -- and so far as we know it hasn't -- I don't see Dzhokhar's execution spurring one either.
I think it would be a lot more likely that extremists would launch a retaliatory attack to avenge bin Laden's death or Saturday night's execution of ISIS leader Abu Sayyaf or even the Muslims killed by police in the Garland TX incident. Yet for some reason there seems to be a higher level of concern about the consequences of executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
I think it would be a lot more likely that extremists would launch a retaliatory attack to avenge bin Laden's death or Saturday night's execution of ISIS leader Abu Sayyaf or even the Muslims killed by police in the Garland TX incident. Yet for some reason there seems to be a higher level of concern about the consequences of executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
We were concerned about the possibility of those types of attacks... when we killed bin Laden. That was four years ago now. Believe me though, we were on high alert for possible retaliation after his death, but considering the circumstances we found him in, it was fairly clear that at the time of his death, bin Laden was little more than a figurehead.
As to Abu Sayyaf; again, he was killed in a firefight. It was not an execution; the US conducted a raid and he happened to be one of the ones we killed. Being killed in a firefight, in the mentality of ISIS, is far far different from being deliberately executed.
You seem to be conflating a mild concern over a possibility that I have flat out said is not likely, but still possible, into a concern spread wide over the intelligence community that an attack will happen in retaliation. I never once said I thought it was certain; I merely said it was a concern I wanted to address, and that I thought it was a possibility that Tsarnaev WANTED to be executed to spur further action from his fellow Muslim extremists. It's entirely likely that he's got a higher opinion of himself than will actually be demonstrated and there will be no attacks in retaliation; but the possibility still has to be considered. I also have my personal opinion that he does not deserve to be put to death, but rather imprisoned for life and forgotten like most criminals we put into Supermax; a footnote in history. Playing into his apparent sense of persecution does no one any favors.
The fact of the matter is, in reality, we kill some of these guys every day, in firefights or raids or what have you; most of them aren't high enough in the hierarchy to warrant much concern beyond the normal firefights, but some do warrant concern. The death of Abu Sayyaf will gain some attention, but unlike Tsarnaev, the fact that he was killed in a firefight lessens the possibility that someone will try to launch a retaliatory attack specifically in his name. Again, I want to stress that I am not at all positive that an attack in Tsarnaev's name will be launched; but I do have to be and am concerned that the manner of his death raises the possibility higher than that of a man killed in a regular firefight. That is all.
I think it would be a lot more likely that extremists would launch a retaliatory attack to avenge bin Laden's death or Saturday night's execution of ISIS leader Abu Sayyaf or even the Muslims killed by police in the Garland TX incident. Yet for some reason there seems to be a higher level of concern about the consequences of executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
I suppose one big difference is that Tsarnaev's execution will be on a publicly known schedule, so that retaliations can be planned to coincide with the date of execution.
Not that I know whether such retaliations are a serious concern. I'm just mentioning a difference which might help explain others' concerns.
I suppose one big difference is that Tsarnaev's execution will be on a publicly known schedule, so that retaliations can be planned to coincide with the date of execution.
Retaliations, or just attacks they were going to make anyway, with whatever excuse was handy, and this turned out to be the handiest excuse on their timeline?
These questions and more. He(they) never contested his guilt, I wonder if this is a procedural thing needed to overturn the death penalty portion of the verdict.
Yea, that's just the logical progression of the process.
1. The judge screwed up causing an unfair trial.
2. The appellate/district/state supreme court screwed up in judging the appeal.
3. Here's some new evidence requiring reconsideration.
4. My lawyer screwed up causing an unfair trial.
5. The law itself is defective.
Of course, each trial presents its own dynamic -- even more so with the unusual circumstance of a defendant admitting the crime.
Filing an intent to appeal is normal is many states -- the deadline is usually fairly short, like 30 days.
b) Appeals in Criminal Cases. In a criminal case, unless otherwise provided by statute, the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the lower court within thirty days after entry of judgment or order appealed from; or entry of a notice of appeal by the Commonwealth; or the imposition of sentence. The running of the time for filing a notice of appeal shall be terminated as to the moving party by a motion for a new trial pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure 30 filed in the lower court within thirty days after the verdict or finding of guilt or within thirty days after imposition of sentence and the full time fixed by this rule shall commence to run and shall be computed from the date of entry of an order denying such motion.
(c) Extension of Time for Filing Notice of Appeal. Upon a showing of excusable neglect, the lower court may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal by any party for a period not to exceed thirty days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this rule. Such an extension may be granted before or after the time otherwise prescribed by this rule has expired; but if a request for an extension is made after such time has expired, it shall be made by motion with such notice as the lower court shall deem appropriate.
That makes the "placeholder" seem like normal procedure - Step 1 being a notice to appeal.
ETA: One thing to consider as pure speculation is that the early timing of notice would seem to bolster an argument later for an "excusable neglect" delay in sub (c) above. That is, it would demonstrate early that the decision to appeal was made and the process started. Of course, this case is high-profile and a death penalty case and probably revolves around a complex issue (the claimed instigator of the plot having undue influence over this defendant) so any delay at this point is pro forma.
The other thing to consider is that at the level of high-profile, capital cases the practice of law can become very specialized (see video below) so it may be that the trial team is fulfilling its obligation to the rules while the appeals team takes over.
Also, the trial attorney has to operate in the defendant's best interest as to what later will amount to challenging his competence at trial. There's no indication that they're at that point yet, though, so it's more-or-less future context at this point.
Yup, look at the list of countries with death penalty, and enjoy the type of members in the club.
Japan? In some respects Japan is a very civilized society, in other respects they certainly aren't (at least not in the normal modern sense of the word).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
