Why Is Tsarnaev on trial at All? Why the hell don’t we send him straight to the death chamber?
Tsarnaev is charged with conspiring with his brother to place two bombs near the Boston Marathon finish line in April 2013, killing three and injuring 260 people. His lawyer surprised a packed courtroom during opening statements at his federal death penalty trial by bluntly admitting that he committed the 2013 attack with his brother,
So why not have the coward plead guilty and then just have a penalty phase for the jury to decide punishment instead of going through both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial?
Apparently there is some legal argument that justifies this travesty, in that Tsarnaev would lose his right to appeal. I still do not see what right he would have to appeal if he admits to the crime.
My guess is that this is merely a legal device to provide the defence team with an opportunity to mitigate Tsarnaev’s responsibility, probably by portraying him as a victim of his brother. They will show the older brother as bullying and manipulative and brainwashing his younger brother into a crime he really did not want to commit.
However, the question still sits in my mind- couldn’t this be done in the penalty phase anyway? Perhaps the not guilty plea gives a greater opportunity.
To my mind this all seems so weak. The guy callously exploded a bomb that killed three and maimed hundreds. He has pleaded guilty. Execute him. Right now.
If he gets off the death penalty due to some devious lawyering, and the liberal mood of the tortuous US legal system, then it will be a complete travesty of the justice his victims have every right to receive.
Categories: American Politics