Final update: As I predicted below, it’s death for Tsarnaev. So sad for our justice system:
________________________________________________________
From my CNN feed:
Jurors have reached a decision in the penalty phase of the Boston Marathon bombing trial.
The jury was tasked with deciding whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be sentenced to life in prison or death for his role in killing four people and wounding hundreds more. Court was to convene at 3 p.m. for the reading of the verdict.
The court will convene in 8 minutes. My prediction: the death sentence. I hope that won’t be the case, but the speed at which the jury pondered their decision suggests unanimity: that there weren’t just a few holdouts who wanted life in prison rather than execution. (It takes a unanimous sentence of death to impose that penalty; if the jury’s deadlocked, it’s life without parole.)
Alternatively—and this is my hope—there was either unanimity for life imprisonment or a deadlock in which the pro-execution people said they could not be moved.
Dzhokar is screwed either way, for life imprisonment in solitary confinement (he’d be killed if put in general population) is about the worst punishment you can receive. In fact, for many death may be preferable: Dzhokhar is only 21, so he’s looking at 50-60 years of spending 23 hours a day in a tiny cell.
We’ll know in five minutes.
Predictions? (The proceedings are somewhat slow—clearly this will take a while.)
UPDATE 1: The jury seems to be unanimous on nearly all the aggravating factors that prescribe execution. Here’s from the livefeed, and it doesn’t look good:
It goes on, relentlessly:
And this despite Sister Helen Prejean’s testmony that Tsarnaev was remorseful:
2:27: Jurors are now finding that Tsarnaev’s father was mentally ill and his older brother was “the dominant influence in his life.” That’s a better sign; he could be construed as having been under the sway of his brother. (This is of course irrelevant, for he was under the sway of something and had no choice about the killings.)
If there are Christians on the jury, I would ask: what would Jesus do?
As Bill Maher said in 2013: https://youtu.be/awh7cTd7wPw?t=21s
Let him go probably. IMO what they decided makes more sense even if you don’t think it was the right call I think we can agree that letting him go would be the worst option.
Sub
I agree, murder is always wrong, whether it’s from a bomb in the street, or through a court of law.
It is also a lot to ask of the people that have to execute on the order. I suppose they may be inclined to seek this job out though, which is a problem in and of itself.
I guess one strategy to never lose an argument about capital punishment is to simply define it as “murder”?
Bummer.
It is a Bummer. We really need to abolish capital punishment.
I’m not surprised. This is what I expected.
I’ve always thought that the US should work to deconvert jihadists that it has in its custody. It should require jihadist inmates to take classes that will expose them to the truth about the man-made nature of the Koran, and Islam in general. If effective, they would likely regain their conscience, and may even plead guilty to their crimes.
“It should require jihadist inmates to take classes that will expose them to the truth about the man-made nature of the Koran, and Islam in general. ”
How on Earth would that be allowed under the constitution?
Well, right now they are doing the opposite. Inmates in Guantanamo receive US State funded religious instruction and guidance from Salafi imams. It’s a state-run mosque and madrassa.
*pulls hair out*
Vengeance by due process.
In a few hundred years humans will look upon democratically decided executions and group them with medieval vengeance. An atavistic throwback to our unregulated hormonally overloaded brains.
The jury was always going to do this, although I hoped otherwise:
1. You had to believe in the death penalty to even get on the jury, which I would argue is someone more likely to have difficulty fairly judging the evidence.
2. Just as Tsarnaev can’t go in the general prison population, imagine how many Americans would treat a juror that didn’t vote for the death penalty. That’s a powerful incentive to vote for death.
Tsarnaev might be best put in Gitmo – at least he could have human contact there.
There are more terrorist attacks in countries that retain the death penalty than don’t. Some deterrent. It’s clearly about revenge, and is long gone in almost every other Western democracy.
“1. You had to believe in the death penalty to even get on the jury, which I would argue is someone more likely to have difficulty fairly judging the evidence.”
Yes, this has always seemed like ensuring a pre-biased jury in the first place. On what constitutional grounds can death penalty opponents be summarily excluded?
“2. Just as Tsarnaev can’t go in the general prison population, imagine how many Americans would treat a juror that didn’t vote for the death penalty. That’s a powerful incentive to vote for death.”
I’ve always felt this way about high-profile trials, too. IMO it should be illegal to disclose how jurors voted in split decisions, but that seems completely unworkable.
Solitary confinement with no chance of parole would have been a much better option, IMO. He has enough years left in his life to ponder over his deeds.
Right! That would mean we could have the satisfaction of him suffering for years. Love that too.
There are various reasons to oppose the death penalty, some of which can be found in the other comments here.
One reason I oppose the death penalty is that the justice system so frequently fails, and innocent people can be rushed to incorrect judgments. And with the death penalty, there is no chance to right that wrong once the penalty is enforced. Look up the Innocence Project for many examples of innocent people being condemned to death, and some of them having their verdicts reversed by new evidence or other developments.
In the case of Tsarnaev, I am not worried that the wrong suspect has been found guilty. It has been a very public case, with a multitude of evidence put forward that he did indeed participate in the killings for which he is accused. The trial has been lengthy and the legal representation appears to be adequate. In these respects, the Tsarnaev trial is unlike so many others. In Texas for example, their Death Row has been turned into an assembly line.
It does make me sad that this is the state of American Justice, and I can’t fault the jury: once they’d found the accused guilty of capital crimes, of course capital punishment logically follows. And presumably jurors are screened to ensure they are “willing” to impose a death sentence.
I’m with Jerry that life in solitary is torture and worse than execution. Neither sentence brings the dead back to life or heals injured bodies.
At least life in solitary can be reversed if subsequent evidence of innocence comes to light (not likely in this case though).
I would happily sentence Anders Breivik to life in solitary though.
I’m agreeable to life imprisonment, so long as he’s given the opportunity of exercise, fresh air, and sunshine several hours/day, opportunity to get on the internet, read books, listen to music, listen to interesting lectures, and any other such things optimizing his quality of life – so long as he agrees to look at the autopsy photos of his victims no less than once/year.
You talking about Breivik or Tsarnaev now?
Breivik I wouldn’t be so kind to.
I wish we could be better than this. Or rather, better than them.
I wonder if this helps the survivors and their families? If it brings some measure of closure? I don’t know if it would help me or not, but it’s hard to imagine being in such a situation.
I should say “…better than them, wrt capital punishment.”
U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz says the Boston Bombing was not a religious crime, but a political crime. And Tsarnaev’s beliefs do not reflect True Muslim Belief™. As if she can be the judge of that.
Isn’t religion politics? The distinction appears so fine as to compare to the emperors clothes, immo.
I fully agree with you. Ortiz denies the survivors their rightful place at the religious discussion table.
At every moment of every day, we have the opportunity to change the way we think. Today was not that day. Our collective reptilian brains won out, and we voted to do what we’ve always done. Maybe tomorrow…?
I have always wondered about that idiotic word “closure”. It is right up there with another often used and meaningless statement – He is in a better place. All the dead people I know are in a “better place”. Lots of evidence for this.
If your spouse or daughter is murdered what is this Closure thing? What is it they are attempting to close?
“Closure”, in this case, is a euphemism for “vengeance”, as W. Benson noted above.
Seconded.
It’s one of those mealy-mouthed PC things. I can understand people wanting revenge (which the law should not necessarily grant), but if so they shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind euphemisms.
Also, revenge may NOT always be synonymous with ‘closure’. For different people, ‘closure’ might consist of e.g. a funeral service. It might be quite unrelated to the fate of the perpetrator.
““Closure”, in this case, is a euphemism for “vengeance”
I don’t think anyone should presume what constitutes closure for the family of a victim. And labeling it “vengeance” is abhorrent.
If someone murdered my child – especially with an act of terrorism, I don’t think I could have peace until they, too, left the world. That’s not a vengeful thought- that’s justice. That’s fairness. IMHO, of course.
Why is it abhorrent? That’s simply what it is. Feeling as though you *need* to inflict the same harm on someone that they inflicted on you or a loved one is the dictionary definition of revenge.
I’m sure I would also feel the impulse for revenge if my child was murdered. But I don’t have a problem calling a spade a spade.
Additionally, this is exactly why we try to keep interested parties from being too involved in the justice process. I can’t very well argue against the death penalty but then say “except if it’s *my* child that’s murdered”.
Also, this is not only about the families of the victims.
“Vengeance by due process” is, I seemed to me, an indictment of the justice system – the system in which disinterested parties have concluded that the appropriate course of action is to kill Tsarnaev. This is about institutional vengeance; I think this episode demonstrates that American society in general feels the need to be avenged (in this case) and considers doing so an appropriate course of action. Which I think is a mistake, for the reasons Jerry gives.
I can see the need for something, that might as well be called closure, when a tragedy has happened and no one can say how or why. Say your child disappeared and there was no evidence as to why. Or the perpetrator was known but escaped. Say a loved one died due to sudden car failure; you’d want to know what exactly happened. The same with medical malpractice.
So I think there’s a valid use of the word closure, but not one that should require vengeance to obtain.
I entirely agree. ‘Closure’ is an infinitely variable concept depending entirely on the circumstances, and it shouldn’t be equated with ‘revenge’.
For those who are interested in the process of death by execution, here’s a Discovery Channel documentary called: Death Row – The Final 24 Hours.
WARNING: THIS MAY BE DISTURBING. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkbI4EcOs9U
It is interesting to observe some of the comments of fairly senior people involved with the case.
From an article in the New York Times:
I’ve little doubt that influencing attitudes of people in the U.S. was a goal of this guy, but I also find it hard to believe that religion wasn’t a strong motivating factor for his actions. It is frustrating when the default stance is to cover for religion.
Ortiz is also known for being the USA responsible for hounding Aaron Schwartz to death. My regard for her has sunk even lower, if possible.
I am generally opposed to the death penalty, for obvious reasons. That being said, there are some cases that make me angry and sad. For example, when someone who is mentally challenged (low IQ or other disability) is convicted and executed. That infuriates me…it’s very depressing. This particular case though, will not cause me a moment’s heartache, not a minute of sleep will be lost. It was a calculated attack against innocent men, women and children…for no other reason than religious nonsense. IFF we are going to execute anyone, this should be the guy we do it to. I don’t think that this guy will ever be the poster child of why we shouldn’t have the death penalty. Hopefully, he is forgotten by most people soon after he is dead, not worth a second thought.
I have been against the death penalty, full stop, for many years and still am but a case like this really puts it to the test.
I most certainly will not lose any sleep either.
It is not only that people died either, to set out to so horribly maim little children and men and women like that is the worst thing I can think of.
So while I maintain my opposition for the greater good no, I won’t lose any sleep either.
The only valid argument I have heard in favour of the death penalty is that confinement without possibility of parole is even more cruel than death.
Maybe valid, but I’m still not really convinced.
The pro-execution argument from deterrence or protection is demonstrably unsound. What about the argument from vengeance or retribution? This is a complicated moral and legal issue.
Introductory information:
“The appeal of retributive justice as a theory of punishment rests in part on direct intuitive support, in part on the claim that it is better than alternative accounts of punishment, and in part on arguments tying it to deeper moral principles.
Many share the intuition that those who commit wrongful acts, especially serious crimes, should be punished even if punishing them would produce no other good.”
Retributive Justice: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/
Punishment: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/
Legal Punishment: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/
Most people share more or less the same moral intuitions but that doesn’t make them (morally) right. Arguments from intuition tend to justify the things we want.
John Rawls and others tried to fix our biased intuition with a thought experiment (wikipedia):
“parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society. When such parties are selecting the principles for distribution of rights, positions, and resources in the society they will live in, the veil of ignorance prevents them from knowing about who they will be in that society. For example, for a proposed society in which 50% of the population is kept in slavery, it follows that on entering the new society there is a 50% likelihood that the participant would be a slave. The idea is that parties subject to the veil of ignorance will make choices based upon moral considerations, since they will not be able to make choices based on self- or class-interest.”
Of course in practice this fails miserably.
We don’t even know if there is such thing as objective good or wrong, though our intuition wouldn’t agree with that.
I’m against the death penalty mostly because I think the message:
“Killing is so wrong that we won’t even kill a murderer once we’ve captured him”
..is a stronger, less contradictory message against killing than:
“Killing is so wrong if we catch a killer, we will kill him!”
And on the note of confusing, IMO saying of
Tsarnaev’s crime:
“…for he was under the sway of something and had no choice about the killings.”
…is at least apt to confuse people as telling them “Tsarnaev, like everyone, had free will.” As soon as you start saying someone “had no choice” to most people’s ears you are talking about fatalism of some kind. Hence IMO you have as much work ahead of you explaining any misconceptions as any compatibilist does in explaining misconceptions to keep the term “free will.”
(That is, if we are talking “little people” arguments, which the “don’t bother keeping the term ‘free will’ because it will only confuse people” seems to be).
Indonesia recently killed by firing squad two Australians found guilty of planning a drug smuggling operation.
They were two in a bunch known as the Bali nine.
It is a interesting story overall with the Australian federal police playing a role in setting them up for Indonesian penalties.
Their sentences were varied a number of times.
Despite heavy political pressure from the highest levels by the Australian government and many others, including Axl Rose, and full acknowledgment by everybody that they had fully reformed, they were finally killed.
Other countries like France Brazil and the EU have protested death for their citizens to no avail as well.
The point of my story is that it is because the strongest democracy, the largest western power, the US, does condone the death penalty that the protests of smaller countries had no effect. “Even America does it” they say.
To say nothing of the US exporting its draconian war on drugs and insisting on other countries be harsh on it.
I have heard it in amongst the rationalisations, and am pretty sure that had the US a no death penalty policy it would influence the rest of the world positively too.
Do you really think that muslim nations would get rid of the death penalty, if we did? You have more faith in them than I do. Most of them are kind of 12th Century folks when it comes to anything to do with their religion.
No, not when it was to with religion but this was a secular matter.
Also, Indonesia while being majority Islam, it is really fairly moderate as far as that goes.
So yes I do think they could be influenced, at least a bit, in this way.
In fact they had a moratorium on executions (IIRC) for many years till the current president got elected and wanted to appear ‘tough on crime’ or some such crap. So politics played a large part.
That’s right.
I should have said, “Not Indonesia”. Yes, I can see Indonesia banning capital punishment again. What about Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. I do not see them stopping it anytime soon, no matter what we do (with the possible exception of us putting severe military/economic pressure on them to do so).
For religious things it would be a struggle to get rid of the death penalty probably.
Part of my point was that because the US does do it they couldn’t very well use sanctions to stop it.
The US must take some of the blame for this, I think going back to J Edgar Hoover and his ‘war on [some] drugs’ which the US successfully exported to many other countries. Those other countries with less human rights record than the US then continue to inflict more savage penalties than would ever be imposed for those crimes in the US.
Damn, that was of course a response to Michael waterhouse’s comment.
Yep, got it. I agree.
Slightly Off topic (and I hope I’m not breaking Da Roolz), this may be of interest:
“Free Atena, Facing Prison For Drawing Cartoons In Iran
Atena Farghadani is a prisoner of conscience, detained and facing years in prison for her peaceful activism.
28-year-old Atena will be tried on Tuesday of charges including ‘spreading propaganda against the system’ and ‘insulting members of parliament through paintings’. Ask Iran’s leaders to release her immediately.”
(Note these weren’t cartoons of M*h*mmed)
For more info, and you can sign a petition, here:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/iran-free-atena-farghadani-womens-rights-activist
and if you untick the box on the page Amnesty won’t put you on their mailing list.
Based on the evidence and his apparent lack of remorse, jury had to give him the maximum penalty allowed by law. It is unfortunate that that penalty is death (which should not be allowed by law).
So, the life of a murderer must be spared at all costs and for his entire lifetime.
But the life of an innocent fetus is not sacrosanct, because it resides inside a woman for a few months?
Have I got that correct? (And, no – I am NOT against abortion rights)
You are not clear.
Why do you stress ‘spared at all costs and for his entire lifetime.’ ?
Sounds like a bit of rhetorical flourish without much meaning to give weight to your following proposition.
How do you know the foetus is innocent?
A foetus is not a person.
And it is not simply residing in a woman.
Maybe you mean that not all killing gets the same treatment? Yes that’s true. If you are not against abortion rights than I see no problem there.
I’m annoyed at the naivety here. Here’s my take on this. I don’t care about this Tsarnaev. There are many more like him out there. I don’t care that he is young. I don’t care that his mother loves him. I do care that these Muslim extremists, defined by who buys into their crackpot message, want to kill us, and I take that very personally. They want to kill me. Therefore, I have no sympathy for this so called kid, Tsarnaev. Execution works for me, the sooner the better, with a message for others who think the same way as him. If you want to kill infidels, and die for Allah, then I’m ready to send you to your 50 virgins.
Dr Coyne [or Prof Coyne, or Prof Ceiling Cat, I’m not sure of the proper honorific:-)];
I have an honest question. I know that, given your openly expressed opinion of capital punishment, it might seem that I am baiting or trolling, and given your strict intolerance for those behaviors on your website, I will strive to avoid any wording that might suggest one of those tacts, but I may fail… If I fail, and something I say can be construed as such, please know that it is a failure in communication on my part, rather than malicious subtlety.
I find myself, largely due to your arguments, shifting my stance on capital punishment… However, I also find myself imagining (although not really able to offer an example of) cases where capital punishment might be warranted.
My question is this: in your view, (disregarding the comparative cost of life in prison vs death, and disregarding the issue of vengeance) is there any case (real or imagined) that could warrant a death penalty?
I’m tempted to explain a scenario or two, that I’m struggling with (purely speculative, mind you… I can’t think of any real world example)… But I think I’d rather hear your unprimed opinion.
Nathan