With bombing admission, why is Tsarnaev on trial at all?

[Lite Beer]

With bombing admission, why is Tsarnaev on trial at all?
DENISE LAVOIE, AP Legal Affairs Writer

BOSTON (AP) — Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's lawyer startled a packed courtroom during opening statements at his federal death penalty trial by bluntly admitting that he committed the 2013 attack with his brother, raising some thorny questions, mainly: Why have a trial at all?

Some legal experts and a bombing survivor weigh in on the strategies at work and the reasons why the trial is moving forward:

___

Q: Why didn't Tsarnaev's lawyers persuade him to change his plea to guilty if the defense acknowledges he did it?

A: "A plea of guilty would result in them waiving all their appellate rights. There are some issues — the venue issue, the makeup of the jury — that they might want to bring to a higher court, so that's another reason they probably wouldn't plead guilty," said Boston College law professor Robert Bloom. "Further, they recognize that this is a two-phase trial and they want to do what they can during the first phase so as to start to make their arguments for the second phase ... the penalty phase." Tsarnaev's defense team is focusing on sparing him from the death penalty.

___

Q: Why put the victims through this?

A: Rebekah Gregory, a woman who lost a leg in the bombing, was one of the first survivors to testify during Tsarnaev's trial. Hours after her testimony, she posted a letter to Tsarnaev on Facebook, saying facing him in court actually helped her.

"TODAY ... I looked at you right in the face...and realized I wasn't afraid anymore. And today I realized that sitting across from you was somehow the crazy kind of step forward that I needed all along," she wrote.

___

Q: Why not just have a penalty phase for the jury to decide punishment instead of going through both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial?

A: "A competent death penalty defense lawyer — during the first phase — will present themes that are relevant to guilt — like diminished capacity, diminished responsibility — that are also entirely consistent with what's going to be said during the mitigation (penalty) phase," said Eric M. Freedman, a death penalty specialist and professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School.

"Death Penalty Defense 101 is to present a unified theme through the guilt phase and the penalty phase. ... Therefore, you are ill-advised to argue in the first phase, 'My client is innocent,' and in the second phase, 'My client is very sorry for what he did.' That's completely ordinary and being carried out in textbook fashion here. They are doing precisely what they are supposed to do."

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-08

[NeverSure]

Some say the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I don't know. They sure fight like hell to avoid the death penalty.

The whole theme of this trial for the defense is to admit he did it and then apply the strategy of trying to get him life without parole instead of death. I guess he wants to be an old man when he gets his virgins.

All of this on both sides at the expense of the taxpayer when the guy isn't worth the price of a bullet.

Edited March 8, 2015 by NeverSure

[Seastallion]

Since when is a confession sufficient to convict? I thought guilt still had to be proven for certainty of justice.

I am Spartacus.

[Scott]

He has the right to a jury trial and apparently that is what he is exercising.

[Credo]

For some reason, I hope he doesn't get the death penalty. I am not sure why, but I don't.

I won't be out joining any demonstration to keep him alive, though.

[elgordo38]

Some say the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I don't know. They sure fight like hell to avoid the death penalty.

The whole theme of this trial for the defense is to admit he did it and then apply the strategy of trying to get him life without parole instead of death. I guess he wants to be an old man when he gets his virgins.

All of this on both sides at the expense of the taxpayer when the guy isn't worth the price of a bullet.

Use the Chinese method bang your dead. Taxpayers save millions. Sure give him life in jail cost the taxpayers more millions. Its amazing how taxpayers can afford these high profile trials.

[robblok]

Some say the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I don't know. They sure fight like hell to avoid the death penalty.

The whole theme of this trial for the defense is to admit he did it and then apply the strategy of trying to get him life without parole instead of death. I guess he wants to be an old man when he gets his virgins.

All of this on both sides at the expense of the taxpayer when the guy isn't worth the price of a bullet.

They also fight like hell not to go to jail. So not a good argument. Of course its a deterrent but how much more as life behind bars who knows.

But with the track record in the USA for corrupt officials and making cases stick to innocent people its not a good thing. Even in my country there are famous cases where in they end they find people innocent after long convictions. Its worse in he US.

So that is my only problem with death penalty you cant reverse it.

[Publicus]

Some say the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I don't know. They sure fight like hell to avoid the death penalty.

<<snip>>

After they've done the crime and after they've been caught. The death penalty makes 'em even more determined not to get caught. How many cold case murders are there nationally...more than are readily imaginable.

Convicting and executing the not guilty is an error too often made although it's not anything governments such as the one in China care about. The concern is not present however in this trial.

This trial is about process which is utmost. The judge's decisions on motions and bench calls from the outset to the sentencing, to include his charge to the jury will inform the justice system. How effectively the defense conducts itself, how competently the prosecution proceeds are case study instances going forward in such trials, investigations.

The whackjob young guy getting life could well be worthwhile if only to see him in an orange jump suit 20 years down the road kicking himself for throwing away his life into a prison isolation due to his long ago stark stupidity.

Tsarnaev is presently glowing in his ethnic and religious martyrdom for killing his brother and all the rest of it. Twenty or so years down the road it would be good to see him feeling revenge on his evil brother in a new realization that he at least killed the sob for the sheer stupidity of each of 'em back then and for what the two together had become and done did those days, weeks, months back then.

The adage that revenge is a dish best served cold applies to society as well in dealing with psycho kids and their deranged families and ideologies. Not to mention Mr Beautiful himself could be some bruiser gorilla's tender young gf the next 40 years.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Publicus

[Bangkok Herps]

Also because stuff like this happens:

Black man has rape and murder confession beat out of him, nearly gets the death penalty, spends 19 years in prison and is still there even though DNA evidence has proved he didn't do it, all the witnesses have recanted and said the police forced them to testify, and the conviction has been overturned.

Why Is This Man Still in Jail?

If your read the article, his case was part of a large string of cases where multiple police in Philly were intimidating people into confessions and "witness testimonies" left and right. Not to mention that mentally unstable people sometimes confess to crimes they didn't commit as well. A confession by itself doesn't prove anything. A lot of innocent people have confessed to a lot of crimes.

Of course, you and I and everyone else knows that Tsarnaev is guilty. But a just country goes through the legal process just to be sure, rather than relying simply on court of public opinion.

And yes, all available research points to the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The largest issue is that people who commit heinous crimes don't sit around thinking "What would I like better if I got caught - life in a maximum security prison or lethal injection?" If they think they're going to get caught, then either they won't do it or they simply don't care what will happen. Usually they don't even think about it. Study after study has shown that the death penalty has no impact on crime rates. Not to mention that "an eye for an eye" is clearly not the kind of society that most of us want to live in - we can rise above murderers who kill for 'justice'.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Bangkok Herps

[Docno]

Some say the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I don't know. They sure fight like hell to avoid the death penalty.

The whole theme of this trial for the defense is to admit he did it and then apply the strategy of trying to get him life without parole instead of death. I guess he wants to be an old man when he gets his virgins.

All of this on both sides at the expense of the taxpayer when the guy isn't worth the price of a bullet.

When you think that dying on the 'battlefield' will guarantee you a place in paradise for eternity, just how will the death penalty work as a deterrent?

They may be scared of the death penalty once caught and once it becomes a very real possibility, but that's not something they're thinking about when they commit these atrocities. So it's deterrent effect is limited.

[Rancid]

Maybe those guys did it or maybe not, aren't they entitled to a trial by jury, or better they get convicted by the corporate media?

That aside search around, there are a lot of anomalies with the whole incident that just don't add up. Perhaps a fair trial can clear all that.