<p>
</p>
<p>You mean like selling heroin on a street corner, but not shooting anyone? The cost to the person buying the heroin is a life sentence of addiction that rarely ends.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hardly. Need I trot out the list of things that “federal law” has at one time or another said that we now regard as unacceptable?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is precisely what I mean. Also selling pot or ecstasy or whatever. Also possession of any of them. I believe that drug use ought to be decriminalized at the very least, and legalized outright in many instances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is the choice of that individual. (Just as it is the choice of an individual to drink to excess on a regular basis or smoke cigarettes and destroy their health.)</p>
<p>The death penalty would be martyrdom for Tsarnaev. The Colo. SuperMax is already built so “why not” him as the person in the cell?</p>
<p>
Not exactly. Even if the prosecutors decide to ask for it, it’s up to the jury to decide whether to apply it. They have to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, and despite what you might think, the defense is likely to be able to marshal some mitigating factors in this case–the defendant’s age, the influence of his brother, and perhaps others. The death penalty is not a slam dunk, even if the prosecutors manage to strike all the jurors who admit to being against the death penalty in all cases. If the prosecution decides not to seek the death penalty, it will because they are concerned that they won’t be able to get it from a jury, and they won’t want to lose anything.</p>
<p>As I think about this some more, I have to think that the defendant’s lawyers would have offered to plead guilty in exchange for no death penalty. If they did, and the prosecution said no, then it’s pretty likely they will seek the death penalty.</p>
<p>If they offered to plead guilty in exchange for no death penalty, the prosecution should have taken the deal and saved us the cost of a trial. And, more importantly, avoided simply creating a spectacle which will do nothing but provide stimulus for other glory-seeking diseased minds and fanatics of all stripes who imagine sharing his fame. Sinking quickly into deserved obscurity would be the best thing, by far.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, the jury can decide against the death penalty. I was referring to the prosecutor’s decision whether to bring the death penalty. </p>
<p>Terrorism is a crime against our nation not a crime against a particular state. Federal law authorized the death penalty and it is unconscionable for the prosecution to substitute its personal policy preferences over the law. Any potential juror who objects to the death penalty would be excluded from the jury without limitation.</p>
<p>Getting rid of that worthless piece of garbage is the only form of justice available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let him be a martyr and go to his heaven and rape all the virgins his religion tells him exist. The people he killed and the American people are entitled to justice. He cannot spread his hate once he’s dead. There is no reason to spend the millions and millions of dollar needed to keep him alive for the rest of his life.</p>
<p>
Prosecutors have discretion. Obviously, if voters don’t like the decisions that federal prosecutors make, they can take that into account during Presidential elections.
Again, if you feel strongly about this, you may want to work harder next time for a candidate who agrees with you more. The last couple of times, those of us who don’t support the death penalty were probably more likely to vote for the guy who won. That’s just how it works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have it backwards. The federal death penalty is the law. If you don’t like it, you should elect a candidate who will repeal it. Good luck with that.</p>
<p>Since the executive branch includes the Justice Department, that’s really not my problem in this particular case. I feel your pain, though–I had similar feelings of frustration when previous administrations had views that deviated from mine. Anyway, they’re probably going to ask for the death penalty, because as I noted, there was no plea deal. The only thing that could possibly be the subject of a plea deal in this case would be the death penalty.</p>
<p>I would add that a no-death penalty deal should include complete cooperation in terms of giving information, now, and at any time in the future. Too bad we don’t have the older brother to question. It seems unlikely that the younger brother knows much.</p>
<p>Not exactly a lot of federal executions ever.</p>
<p>[BOP:</a> Federal Executions](<a href=“http://www.bop.gov/about/history/execchart.jsp]BOP:”>http://www.bop.gov/about/history/execchart.jsp)</p>
<p>Not many, but McVeigh is the precedent here.</p>
<p>
If the Federal government didn’t want prosecutorial discretion, they could have provided that the death penalty is the sole penalty for terrorism. (Of course, that would likely violate the 4th Amendment.)</p>
<p>There is always prosecutorial discretion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prosecutorial discretion has never meant a prosecutor gets to enforce the laws he or she agrees with and not prosecute the laws he or she does not agree with. That is the discretion you are seeking. Your are asking a prosecutor to avoid seeking the death penalty under the hopes that the prosecutor does not personally agree with a penalty that is the existing federal law. That is lawlessness. If there was ever a case that deserved the death penalty, this is it. The prosecutors should do their job and make sure bomber 2 is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Bombing</a> victims polled on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, trial | Boston Herald](<a href=“Bombing victims polled on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, trial – Boston Herald”>Bombing victims polled on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, trial – Boston Herald)</p>
<p>Apparently Holder can’t figure it out for himself, he has to conduct a poll. Pathetic.</p>
<p>
Actually, I’m not advocating one way or the other; I can understand both sides of the question.</p>
<p>And it is not “lawlessness.” Prosecutors have always had discretion about whether to seek the most severe penalty for a crime - murder 1, murder 2, voluntary manslaughter? Assault with a deadly weapon, simple assault or hate crime? </p>
<p>Never mind plea bargaining.</p>
<p>If the statute wanted prosecutors to seek the death penalty in all circumstances, it would have said so. It doesn’t. Just because a penalty is “available” doesn’t mean that a prosecutor must seek it.</p>
<p>
Sez you. The prosecutors may have a little better grasp than you as to how a federal jury empanelled in Massachusetts is likely to weigh the mitigating and aggravating factors that must be considered. While I think they will ask for the death penalty, and probably get it, they certainly don’t want to ask for it and not get it. I’ll add that they may know something we don’t know–for example, whether the defendant will be able to point to any mental health issues that might serve as mitigating factors.</p>
<p>I hardly think that consulting the wishes of the victims and their families constitutes a “pathetic” inability to make up one’s own mind.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I have a problem with it. The law is not supposed to serve an individual’s desire for revenge, but society, is it not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sez you. Mitigating and aggravating factors is something the jury will consider in order to select the best option. If prosecutors take away the death penalty they have taken away an option for the jury to consider and, thus, assumed the role of the jury. That is wrong. Any potential jury member who automatically excluded the death penalty from consideration would be removed for cause.</p>