Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[newyorkguy]

I do actually understand that. I know that sometimes "life" sentences allow for parole and that consecutive "life" sentences increase the time until the convict is eligible for parole. Nonetheless, it seems a bit nonsensical to me to call a sentence a "life" sentence when it really isn't. The nonsensical (if taken at face value) consecutive life sentences stems from the nonsensical (or maybe it's just lazy) practice of calling a sentence that is really something like 10 years to life a "life" sentence.

There are other reasons too. Consecutive life sentences usually mean someone was charged with and convicted of multiple and major counts. If one of the convictions is overturned it doesn't mean the inmate is released. He's still serving life on the other conviction(s).

 

[Rat]

I do actually understand that. I know that sometimes "life" sentences allow for parole and that consecutive "life" sentences increase the time until the convict is eligible for parole. Nonetheless, it seems a bit nonsensical to me to call a sentence a "life" sentence when it really isn't. The nonsensical (if taken at face value) consecutive life sentences stems from the nonsensical (or maybe it's just lazy) practice of calling a sentence that is really something like 10 years to life a "life" sentence.

"Life sentence" is not synonymous with "life in prison". If you are released from prison after receiving a life sentence, you are released on licence, meaning that you can be recalled to prison at any time for the rest of your life; the sentence itself is lifelong, but the part of it spent in prison is not. In that respect, a life sentence really is a life sentence.

ETA: I am of course speaking of the situation over here. This thread is regarding US law, but I believe the situation to be very similar over there.

 

[Elind]

MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lindsay Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are never at the level of Lindsay Graham; but then I am not pandering to the lowest level of our society.

 

[SezMe]

Nonetheless, it seems a bit nonsensical to me to call a sentence a "life" sentence when it really isn't.

Agreed but I think this mislabeling applies to almost all prison sentences. 10 years is not really 10 years. But I suppose the practice makes the tough-on-crime cohort feel better.

 

[newyorkguy]

I am of course speaking of the situation over here. This thread is regarding US law, but I believe the situation to be very similar over there.

In the US it varies from state to state and also federal.

Take Michigan:

In Michigan, a life sentence consists of two possible scenarios. Life sentence with parole means that a parole board can determine after a number of years if the person is eligible to leave prison. Mandatory means that the person will not have the opportunity to leave unless DNA later determines that the person did not commit the crime.

In North Carolina a life sentence meant eighty years. Theoretically it could be reduced from 80 to 40 years under “day-for-day” good time credit rule. I don't think that's the way the system works in North Carolina now, however. I think sentencing was "toughened up."

In California:

A life sentence is of essentially two types. One is life without the possibility of parole. That means exactly what it says. No release ever. One will die in prison. Just a life term means that one may or may not get out ever. The board of prison terms decides when the defendnt is to be released. There may be minimum times that have to be served first. Three strikes is 25 to life. So one does the 25 before he or she is considered for release.

Link

 

[SezMe]

Or it might not come to trial at all, I can really see Tsarnev agreeing to spill everything he knows in return for not getting the death penalty.

I think that scenario likely .... but.... If some reports are correct that the shot in the throat was self-inflicted then he might not prefer life in prison over death. OTOH, contemplating the matter in a jail cell is quite different than being on the wrong end of a massive man hunt. Somehow the question reminds me of Truman's desire for a one-armed economist.

 

[linusrichard]

In the US it varies from state to state and also federal.

Take Michigan:

In Michigan, a life sentence consists of two possible scenarios. Life sentence with parole means that a parole board can determine after a number of years if the person is eligible to leave prison. Mandatory means that the person will not have the opportunity to leave unless DNA later determines that the person did not commit the crime.

The last bit (underlined) is not correct. Michigan has parolable life and non-parolable life, and if you are sentenced to non-parolable life, you will die in prison unless your conviction or sentence is overturned (or the governor intervenes). But there are plenty of ways to overturn a conviction or sentence without DNA evidence. There is a statutory provision that covers using DNA evidence to support a motion for new trial, but that does not mean that that is the only way to get a new trial.

I don't know other states, but I am virtually certain that every state allows appeals, and I am certain that every state that allows appeals allows other grounds for overturning a conviction or sentence, than DNA evidence. Also federal habeas corpus is available in every state.

 

[BTMO]

MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lindsay Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally I'm against it. I think we tread a dangerous path when we start declaring some crimes to be above the normal legal procedures.

Yep - try him at home. He's an American citizen. And don't try him using bogeyman terror charges. Treat him as a common criminal.

Murder is a crime, blowing buildings up is a crime, malicious injury is a crime.

Take the "mystique" of being some sort of soldier or freedom fighter away and just treat him like a common criminal.

 

[Craig B]

I don't agree. If a US citizen did the act in cooperation with a foreign group, I would consider that an enemy combatant.

How liberal of you! But that's not what happened to UK citizens accused of treachery during the Second World War. No prison camp for them!

All the trials of people charged under the Treachery Act 1940 were conducted `in camera’. The judges appeared to be concerned about the amount of information contained in these press releases, which were issued after the execution of people tried `in camera’.

All the people except Jakobs and Schurch, were tried before a judge and 12-person jury at The Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) London. Both Jakobs and Schurch were tried by Military general courts martial at the Duke Of York's HQ, Chelsea, London.

All the people, except Josef Jakobs, were executed by hanging at either Pentonville or Wandsworth Prison, London. Josef Jakobs was executed by firing squad at The Tower of London.

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/treachery.htm

 

[newyorkguy]

The New York Times reports that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was questioned by FBI agents Sunday under the public safety exception without being read his Miranda rights. Tsarnaev mostly nodded his answers. The FBI said the suspect admitted 1) he was involved in the Boston Marathon bombings, 2) he and his brother acted alone, and he knew of 3) no more unexploded bombs or 4) bombing plots.

Yesterday a bedside arraignment was held. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his rights, appointed counsel, denied bail and arraigned on federal charges.

Here's a link to a transcript of his arraignment.

 

[Border Reiver]

Yep - try him at home. He's an American citizen. And don't try him using bogeyman terror charges. Treat him as a common criminal.

Murder is a crime, blowing buildings up is a crime, malicious injury is a crime.

Take the "mystique" of being some sort of soldier or freedom fighter away and just treat him like a common criminal.

This is my preferred option as well. Scrupulously ensure that he has all the protections that the legal system provides for. Give no reason for him to become any kind of cause celebre for judicial activists.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is my preferred option as well. Scrupulously ensure that he has all the protections that the legal system provides for.

Apparently that is exactly what is happening.

 

[Courier]

There is something very unromantic and unspectacular, about a terrorist being tried in civilian court, with a civilian lawyer, and sent to a civilian prison.

They want fame & noteriaty, not to be treated like a common thug & criminal.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The New York Times reports that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was questioned by FBI agents Sunday under the public safety exception without being read his Miranda rights. Tsarnaev mostly nodded his answers. The FBI said the suspect admitted 1) he was involved in the Boston Marathon bombings, 2) he and his brother acted alone, and he knew of 3) no more unexploded bombs or 4) bombing plots.

Yesterday a bedside arraignment was held. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his rights, appointed counsel, denied bail and arraigned on federal charges.

Here's a link to a transcript of his arraignment.

Good to hear.

There is something very unromantic and unspectacular, about a terrorist being tried in civilian court, with a civilian lawyer, and sent to a civilian prison.

They want fame & noteriaty, not to be treated like a common thug & criminal.

Exactly.

 

[CORed]

"Life sentence" is not synonymous with "life in prison". If you are released from prison after receiving a life sentence, you are released on licence, meaning that you can be recalled to prison at any time for the rest of your life; the sentence itself is lifelong, but the part of it spent in prison is not. In that respect, a life sentence really is a life sentence.

ETA: I am of course speaking of the situation over here. This thread is regarding US law, but I believe the situation to be very similar over there.

Some US states (I'm not sure about the federal government) have "life without parole" sentences, usually for first degree murder, which means the convict is in prison for the rest of their life. Some life sentences do carry the possibility of parole (you are out of jail but under supervision with significant restrictions, such as no alcohol, not associating with known criminals, etc., and periodic reporting to a parole officer) after some number of years. In most cases, I believe, that, as in the UK, the parole is life-long and if you violate any provisions, you go back to prison.

 

[CORed]

They have no evidence that he acted in concert with any terrorist groups.

More importantly, evidence that he acted in concert with Al Qaeda or related groups, doesn't mean he is guilty.

Do we really want to strip American citizens detained on American soil, of cherished 5th & 6th Amendment rights?

I am not convinced that there is any valid reason to deal with anybody who commits an act of terrorism on American soil other than through the criminal justice system. I could live with foreign nationals who are here illegally for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism being classified as "enemy combatants". The surviving Boston bomber, OTOH, is an American citizen, and so far we have no evidence that he is working in concert with any organized terrorist group. The fact that Republican Senators are suggesting that he be stripped of his constitutional rights is one more sign that most Republicans are part of, or are pandering to, the lunatic fringe.

 

[Courier]

I am not convinced that there is any valid reason to deal with anybody who commits an act of terrorism on American soil other than through the criminal justice system. I could live with foreign nationals who are here illegally for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism being classified as "enemy combatants". The surviving Boston bomber, OTOH, is an American citizen, and so far we have no evidence that he is working in concert with any organized terrorist group. The fact that Republican Senators are suggesting that he be stripped of his constitutional rights is one more sign that most Republicans are part of, or are pandering to, the lunatic fringe.

Its shows how committed they are to Constitutional Rights and Freedom.

The problem with stripping Constitutional Rights away from citizens & Permanent Residents of the USA, is that they may be innocent!!!

But without these cherished Rights that we fought and died for, innocent people may be found guilty, due to a lower burden of proof and the loss of the right against self-incrimination, that comes with military tribunals. Plus the fact that in military tribunals some evidence can remain sealed, which means the Defense has no ability to challenge it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Its shows how committed they are to Constitutional Rights and Freedom.

There is only one.

 

[newyorkguy]

Some more background emerging on the surviving Marathon bombing suspect, nineteen-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The New Yorker magazine reports in this week's issue, high school friend Ashraful Rahman called him, "a cool guy. I never got any bad vibes from him....I have to ask, was he forced to do this? It's so out of character. He was really into marijuana. And generally guys like that are very calm, cool."

The New Yorker also looked at his Twitter account:

September 1, 2012 "Idk why it's hard for many of you to accept that 9/11 was an inside job..."

January 15, 2013 "I don't argue with fools who say islam [sic] is terrorism it's not worth a thing, let an idiot remain an idiot."

And two tweets from the day of the bombing-

April 15, 2013 "Ain't no love in the heart of the city, stay safe people."

April 15, 2013 "There are people who know the truth but stay silent & there are people that speak the truth but we don't hear them cuz they're the minority."

 

[Jodie]

I don't think they take that classification lightly (as seen from the fact he was not charged that way). This is for the times when the person can be shown to not hold these rights for others, why should he/she receive them in return? It still provides more rights than in the majority of the world.

Which was the point I was trying to make earlier to those attempting to be more politically correct.