Was Boston Bomber Jury ‘Rigged’ To Ensure ‘Unconstitutional’ Death Sentence?
Let’s be straight up right from the start, the actions of “Boston Bomber” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cannot be condoned in any way shape or form. The bomber set out to kill and maim innocent members of the public who were enjoying a fun day out. The bomber deliberately chose a spot where their actions would cause the maximum effect. The bomber killed three people and injured 260 others in a political action against the country that adopted him and offered him the opportunity of a better life.
The “Boston Bomber” chose to act as he did, and in doing so he left a stain on the collective consciousness of the city. To the surprise of many people the New York Times reports that a poll carried out by the Boston Globe indicates that only 15 percent of the residents of Boston believe that the bomber should be executed. Across the state of Massachusetts just 19 percent of those polled believe that the bomber should be put to death.
While the death penalty has not been deemed illegal in Massachusetts it has been deemed “unconstitutional.” Business Insider reports that prosecutors pursuing capital cases won’t allow jurors who oppose the death penalty to sit in such cases. They argue that this means that the jury is predisposed to return a death sentence. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler argues that a truly representative jury may have returned a different sentence in the “Boston Bomber” case.
Winkler said, “the jury was ‘rigged’ in favor of the death penalty. In death penalty cases, lawyers are allowed to dismiss any juror who is opposed to the death penalty, Tsarnaev’s death penalty sentence should come as no surprise. Few crimes are more detestable than terrorism, which intentionally murders innocent civilians to make a political statement.”
He continued, “a true representative jury in Massachusetts might well have imposed a different sentence.”
According to the New York Times many fear that putting the “Boston Bomber” to death will only serve for some to see him as a martyr. Others fear that the countless appeals will ensure that the bomber’s crimes will be relived by those affected over and over until the issue is finally resolved, potentially in 20 years from now. Some feel that sentencing the 21-year-old bomber to stay in prison until the day he dies is a fate worse than death.
The parents of Martin Richard, the 8-year-old killed by the bomber, oppose the death penalty, saying that the bomber “murdered our 8-year-old son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul.”
“We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives.”
The death penalty has been abolished in most of the world and the Washington Post reports that the U.S. lies fifth in the table of countries that carry out the most executions. Lawyers for the “Bali Nine” ringleaders, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, who were executed in Indonesia for drug smuggling have called on the Australian government to oppose the death penalty imposed on the “Boston Bomber” on the grounds that it is “barbaric and inhumane.”
What do Inquisitr readers think. Should the “Boston Bomber” be executed?
[Photo by FBI via Getty Images]
