05-22-2015 05:30 PM
32 12
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    Yes, I was aware. The recent cases of lethal injection going horribly wrong won't help.
    It's possible that Tsarnaev may end up serving the equivalent of life in prison without parole if the government fails to execute him. It just shows how powerful opponents to the death penalty are.
    anon8380037 likes this.
    05-21-2015 02:09 PM
  2. anon8380037's Avatar
    It's possible that Tsarnaev may end up serving the equivalent of life in prison without parole if the government fails to execute him. It just shows how powerful opponents to the death penalty are.
    That seems likely.
    I guess the message was in the sentencing rather than the execution itself, from the judicial and government point of view.

    So it's a win win for them.

    Not a win win for the families and Bostonians.

    So ultimately this sentence was another loss.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    05-21-2015 02:15 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    Not a win win for the families and Bostonians.
    To be fair, not all of the families of the victims were in favor of the death penalty for Tsarnaev.

    Also, Massachusetts abolished the death penalty, so life without parole would be consistent with the law of the state. (Even Mitt Romney tried to reinstate it when he was the governor, but he was unable to do so.)

    The only reason why capital punishment is an option is because of a legal loophole that elevates this case to the federal level, which allows for the death penalty.
    anon8380037 likes this.
    05-22-2015 04:09 AM
  4. anon8380037's Avatar
    To be fair, not all of the families of the victims were in favor of the death penalty for Tsarnaev.

    Also, Massachusetts abolished the death penalty, so life without parole would be consistent with the law of the state. (Even Mitt Romney tried to reinstate it when he was the governor, but he was unable to do so.)

    The only reason why capital punishment is an option is because of a legal loophole that elevates this case to the federal level, which allows for the death penalty.
    The families didn't want the death penalty as, for one thing, they will have to re-live and face him again during appeals as I understand it. There will be individuals in favor I'm sure.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    05-22-2015 05:25 AM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    The families didn't want the death penalty as, for one thing, they will have to re-live and face him again during appeals as I understand it. There will be individuals in favor I'm sure.
    Do you think the Boston Marathon bombing case will spark a renewed interest in bringing back the death penalty to Massachusetts as part of state law?
    05-22-2015 03:29 PM
  6. anon8380037's Avatar
    Do you think the Boston Marathon bombing case will spark a renewed interest in bringing back the death penalty to Massachusetts as part of state law?
    Ah Gosh - I couldn't say. I'm out of my depth over here.
    The impression given by the BBC in street interviews with the Boston public for example, and in our newspapers, seemed to show most were still against the death penalty.
    It would have been interesting for me to have listened to local radio phone-in's during the days following (the sentencing).

    I expect opinions on returning the death penalty will waiver for a time, and again whenever his appeals are in the news.

    (Even Mitt Romney tried to reinstate it when he was the governor, but he was unable to do so.)
    Didn't know that.

    However, since Tsarnaev employed a weapon of mass destruction, the charges were elevated to the federal level, which allows death by lethal injection.
    The Supreme Court is always hearing cases on whether lethal injection itself is cruel and unusual punishment, which would violate the Constitution.
    Can his defense appeal the decision to raise it to federal level now? They were "just" packed explosives.
    Would Timothy McVeigh have been charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction if that term existed then? How big was that awful attack.
    I didn't fully understand the federal level reasoning. The Tsarnaev's act was considered an attack on the country and it's people, so I guess that explains it.

    Your Supreme Court regularly considering whether it is excessively inhumane is a useful pointer to how it will play out as well.

    Thanks for the information.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    05-22-2015 04:33 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    Can his defense appeal the decision to raise it to federal level now? They were "just" packed explosives.
    Would Timothy McVeigh have been charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction if that term existed then? How big was that awful attack.
    I didn't fully understand the federal level reasoning. The Tsarnaev's act was considered an attack on the country and it's people, so I guess that explains it.
    Federal law is applicable in all states, so Tsarnaev's defense team cannot claim that he should not be tried under federal law.

    The reason why Tsarnaev was tried first under federal law is because Massachusetts turned custody of Tsarnaev over to the federal government for the purposes of the trial.

    If, hypothetically speaking, Tsarnaev was acquitted at the federal level, he could be tried again under Massachusetts law, but he would not be eligible for the death penalty because Massachusetts law does not allow it.

    Timothy McVeigh attacked a federal building, so he was automatically tried under federal law. The method he employed would not change the jurisdiction, but it would be an aggravating factor for sentencing.
    anon8380037 likes this.
    05-22-2015 05:30 PM
32 12

Similar Threads

  1. sprint service in Boston area
    By yoshi351 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-03-2015, 04:05 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2014, 01:26 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD