Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

newyorkguy said:
I'm not agreeing that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be executed without trial, I find that ridiculous because, despite any argument to the contrary, we all know a) why that isn't a good idea and b) there is not even the slightest chance that will happen.

However we also don't know -- or at least I don't think we know -- that the FBI didn't videotape the questioning Tsarnaev underwent. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but this is unknown to the judge and jury, aka Jodie.
 
Jodie said:
Border Reiver said:
So far, your "rethinking the whole process" has been to:

a. Remove the right to trial if there are media reports of a confession and supporting evidence; No, I take nothing the media says as gospel, that was your assumption.

If you don't take the media reports as gospel, why are you stating that there is no need for a trial in this matter and that we can move straight to sentencing? The media is the only source of information on this to date and it's not like the various outlets for news are rushing to give a balanced assessment of the evidence with an opportunity for anything exculpatory.

b. Move straight to sentencing if the facts, as they are reported in the media, offer no other explanation other than the person's guilt;Once again, your assumption

If that isn't what you mean (that if the facts as presented in the media say he's guilty, then we should go straight to sentencing) then what do you mean? Because that's pretty much how I interpret what you've presented

c. Introduce the idea of exile as a judicial punishment to countries where the person's ancestors were born. This is true, and I still think it is a fine idea.

That you feel exile is a viable punishment tells me that you are approaching this problem with very little of the underlying principles of punishment (retribution, rehabilitation and safety).

I will say that your idea might speed up the judicial process if adopted - there remains a number small problems with your ideas that you really should ponder:

a. How do you separate false confessions to offences from actual confessions without a neutral third party to examine all the other evidence;
This does not have to take an excessively long time to accomplish in clear cut cases such as Tsaraev's and Ariel's. These kinds of cases are the exception.

Saying that it shouldn't take an excessively long time to separate false from actual confessions is a little disingenuous - if you need to take the time to sort out a false from an actual confession, then you've got time for a trial. This is what a trial does. There is also an old saying "exceptional cases make for bad law" meaning that if you alter your judicial system as a result of outrage over a case such as either Tsarnaev or Ariel, or a Dahmer, then in your rush to judgement you stand a good chance of denying justice to others.
b. How do you determine what the person actually confessed to, or under what circumstances; Videotape all confessions

Sorry, not all cops carry shoulder mounted cameras to record everything. what about written confessions? Could a confession be recanted, or are we to start playing by the "no takebacks" rule?

c. How do you prevent the abuse of this process; As stated above.

And if the confessor starts off with "I was forced to confess to that. Really, I was in Jersy at the time visiting a cousin." at the sentencing hearing, then I suppose the video taped confession did what to prevent an abuse of process.

d. If saving time and judicial resources is the goal why not just assume that everyone arrested is guilty and punish them accordingly; This is stupid and not even remotely close to what I suggested.

It is a logical extension of your proposal to skip to sentencing where we know that he or she is guilty. You've reversed the onus of proof, esentially not having the state prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defense is able to ensure that those doubts aren't steamrollered in the quest streamline the system. The removal of personal freedom by the state is one of the strongest sanctions available and given the value we place on individual freedom its removal should require extradordinary means to achieve.

e. If you decide to strip a citizen of their citizenship and exile them how do you determine where that person should be exiled to; If they are a U.S. citizen it would be a moot point, but if we are considering terrorists of foreign birth, why not?

This is a moot point - Tsarnaev is a US citizen - exile is not a punishment in any legal system currently in effect. The world generally works on the principle of allowing states to deal with crimes within their own territories and frankly if a crime happens inside a country, the harm happens to that country and they should be able to deal with it. Not doing so is a rather strong admission that you have a pretty weak society.

f. How do you determine that the country they are exiled to will punish them at all; I can't think of too many countries that welcome terrorists, it would just be a matter of time before they did something illegal there and had to wade through a foreign judiciary process.

Libya and the Lockerbie bomber - convicted and when brought to Libya he ends up being feted and released.

And your own statement is a good example of why we don't exile people - why would they want someone who's been accused of a terrorist act wandering their streets, while the exiling state is going, "your problem now"?

g. How do you persuade a nation state to accept your convicted criminal; and Exactly, but if they possessed dual citizenship, no crime was committed in the country of origin, can they refuse them entry?

Yes.

h. Convince a large portion of the voters that your proposed changes to the judicial system are perfectly acceptable, that such extraordinary power will not be abused, and that the US Constitution needs urgent amendment to reflect this and that such amendments need to have retroactive application (at least back to April 15, 2013)? All you have to do is put it out there and see what happens. There is no way to predict abuse, but since our current system is abused, anything should be an improvement whether we adhere more diligently to the existing laws or amend the constitution to strip terrorists of their rights. We aren't doing such a hot job controlling terrorism in our own country with past measures, if you continue to do things the way you have always done them, then you will always get the same result.

I would think that your proposed system is a lot more open to abuse than the current one - you don't seem to have consistent standards of proof, you are relying on emotional assessment of limited information to render judgement and rather than accept responsibility for your own societal problem you want to send them to other countries.

Frankly the US actually does a fairly good job of dealing with terrorism - how many incidents have there been within the US in the last ten years? Do you really think that overturing a key part of the US legal underpinnings will make you safer, or will it breed additional resentment?
Click to expand...

There you have it in bold.
Click to expand...

My replies in italics.
 
varwoche said:
Well then, justice ala Jodie will have to wait another day. There is no videotaped confession from Tsarnaev.
Click to expand...

I would think they would have gotten one with the push to put dash cams in cop cars.
 
Jodie said:
I would think they would have gotten one with the push to put dash cams in cop cars.
Click to expand...

I would think the only time Dhozkar Tsarnaev was anywhere in proximity to a police car dash cam was when he was being taken from the boat in the Watertown backyard (after he was captured) and being loaded into an ambulance. Right then I don't think he was in any condition to even speak, let alone make a spontaneous confession.
 
newyorkguy said:
However we also don't know -- or at least I don't think we know -- that the FBI didn't videotape the questioning Tsarnaev underwent. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
Click to expand...
Also ... according to press reports, he stopped talking once mirandized. Quaint constructs like Miranda rights probably aren't going to sway Jodie, but I just thought I'd mention.
 
Jodie said:
If they catch the culprit read handed as they did Ariel and Tsarvaev then the confession, compounded by witness statements, and the evidence should speak for itself, why bother with a trial?
Click to expand...
Holy Toledo, Jodie. That is what a trial IS. You could very well continue this thread all by yourself, first taking one side then the other.
 
But why do you have to go through the formality of a trial? ( Sorry, I've been on vacation) Peers for this guy would be other terrorists and the average citizen is going to rely on what the experts say about the evidence......so, seems like a moot point to me.
 
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really cannot make it any more clear. It's really simple.

Peers in the context of the US Constitution, refers to common citizens that live in the area.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think they would be objective? He just blew a bunch of common citizens up at a marathon.
 
Yes. And either way, it's irrelevant to your opinion. He will be tried according to the US Constitution, not by mob rule.
 
I listened to about :38 of that video, and couldn't figure out what it was trying to say in this context. Can you explain your reasoning for posting that video?
 
Shirley Q was describing the process for jury duty selection, what happened when she was sequestered, and what the judge inevitably did when the jury was "dreadlocked". That sounds about right. I've never been chosen for jury duty, and for good reason, they usually choose people who can be easily swayed.
 
I've been on jury duty twice. Both the prosecutor and the defense can ask for jurors to be excused. The first time I was on jury duty it was a civil trial involving a hospital and medical malpractice. Both sides were asking the potential jurors questions about a) whether the juror had ever worked in the health field or have family that does, b) if they had ever had a problem with a medical procedure, c) the defense attorney asked, if it was demonstrated that a medical team made a mistake would you have a problem finding against them? Both sides asked, do you think you can render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial? Several jurors said, based on personal feelings they had, that no they didn't think they could be impartial and they were excused.

The attorneys wanted jurors who could be impartial, not jurors who could be easily swayed. Anyway, how would they determine which jurors could be easily swayed? What kind of questions could they ask?

Jodie for crying out loud, you started this thread by writing that Dzokhar Tsarnaev should be declared guilty without trial, or deported without trial. Now you're attacking the basic integrity of our justice system. Whose side are you on anyway?
 
The integrity of the system leaves a lot to be desired. What I'm hearing is the how it should work, not how it actually works. So in order for the system to actually work the way it is supposed to one has to do something extremely heinous to garner public attention.

In this case, there is no doubt about the guy's personal guilt but I can see why they would interrogate him to find out how much involvement others might have, but other than that, I think we should dispense with the expense of a trial and get on with it.
 
Jodie said:
...What I'm hearing is the how it should work, not how it actually works..
Click to expand...

Not from me you're not. I explained to you what I saw and heard when I was selected for jury duty.

And btw, I'm not surprised you were dismissed as a juror. You don't have an open mind and you're far from impartial.

Jodie said:
I've never been chosen for jury duty, and for good reason, they usually choose people who can be easily swayed.
Click to expand...

How did you get out of serving your obligation, I'm curious? When they asked you if you could be impartial what did you say? No? Is that what got you released from your obligation? :(
 
Jodie said:
The integrity of the system leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

It is a human system and therefore is subject to error. What is actually astounding though is that the basic system works for the vast majority of cases in a substantial portion of the countries in the world. Your proposed system is far more likely to yield an unjust result, so why should people go for it?

What I'm hearing is the how it should work, not how it actually works. So in order for the system to actually work the way it is supposed to one has to do something extremely heinous to garner public attention.
Click to expand...

No, the process is set out very clearly for how it works in all cases. That errors occasionally happen is the reason that there is an appeal process.

In this case, there is no doubt about the guy's personal guilt but I can see why they would interrogate him to find out how much involvement others might have, but other than that, I think we should dispense with the expense of a trial and get on with it.
Click to expand...

While you may wish to live in a nation state where government authorities can decide to just "get on with it" and dispense with citizens' rights to save a couple of bucks, I would think that the vast majority of your fellow citizens would disagree with you - you can look at the rather underwhelming support your ideas have received here as a small sample.
 
newyorkguy said:
Not from me you're not. I explained to you what I saw and heard when I was selected for jury duty.

And btw, I'm not surprised you were dismissed as a juror. You don't have an open mind and you're far from impartial.



How did you get out of serving your obligation, I'm curious? When they asked you if you could be impartial what did you say? No? Is that what got you released from your obligation? :(
Click to expand...


I 'm sure I would make a horrible juror, not because of impartiality or being close minded, but because I would probably have a better understanding of the forensic evidence than most people. No attorney really wants that kind of person as a juror.

When asked I simply said the physical evidence would speak for itself and that has nothing to do with being impartial.
 
Border Reiver said:
It is a human system and therefore is subject to error. What is actually astounding though is that the basic system works for the vast majority of cases in a substantial portion of the countries in the world. Your proposed system is far more likely to yield an unjust result, so why should people go for it?



No, the process is set out very clearly for how it works in all cases. That errors occasionally happen is the reason that there is an appeal process.



While you may wish to live in a nation state where government authorities can decide to just "get on with it" and dispense with citizens' rights to save a couple of bucks, I would think that the vast majority of your fellow citizens would disagree with you - you can look at the rather underwhelming support your ideas have received here as a small sample.
Click to expand...

The system is only as good as it works. Several countries are much worse than we are, Italy comes to mind. If we had the infrastructure to support our legal system in working properly then I would be a bigger fan.

Many opt to take a lesser sentence, whether they are truly guilty or not, rather than sit in jail waiting on an appeal. That was not how the system was supposed to work.

The sample here is by no means representative of the general consensus in this country. I do feel that if you are a terrorist working against this country then you should be stripped of your legal rights. There was a confession and overwhelming positive evidence, I say dispense with a trial in these types of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom