A terrorist attack from Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev on April 15th,
2013, during the Boston Marathon, resulted in three lives lost and wounded
more than 260 people. On December 19th, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will go to a
three-judge federal appellate panel to state that he didn’t get a fair trial back
in 2015. He is currently on death row, but his lawyers are arguing that Judge
O’Toole was not fair and the jury was not bias-free. Along with this, they are
stating that the trial was in Boston, while most trials like this try to do it in
a different place in the US. Two people who were part of the jury were on
twitter, where their friends were encouraging them to “send Tsarnaev to jail
where he will be taken care of.” Lawyers are stating that since the people on
the jury didn’t mention any of this, they weren’t being truthful, and had a
clear bias. They will also question the fairness of O’Toole, Gertner says,
"Instead of asking the specific question about what people knew about the
case [O’Toole] asked the most general: 'Have you heard about this case?' kind
of question." O’Toole also encouraged that the trial be in Boston. Overall,
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is hoping that this evidence will be
enough to get rid of his death penalty.
2013, during the Boston Marathon, resulted in three lives lost and wounded
more than 260 people. On December 19th, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will go to a
three-judge federal appellate panel to state that he didn’t get a fair trial back
in 2015. He is currently on death row, but his lawyers are arguing that Judge
O’Toole was not fair and the jury was not bias-free. Along with this, they are
stating that the trial was in Boston, while most trials like this try to do it in
a different place in the US. Two people who were part of the jury were on
twitter, where their friends were encouraging them to “send Tsarnaev to jail
where he will be taken care of.” Lawyers are stating that since the people on
the jury didn’t mention any of this, they weren’t being truthful, and had a
clear bias. They will also question the fairness of O’Toole, Gertner says,
"Instead of asking the specific question about what people knew about the
case [O’Toole] asked the most general: 'Have you heard about this case?' kind
of question." O’Toole also encouraged that the trial be in Boston. Overall,
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is hoping that this evidence will be
enough to get rid of his death penalty.
Do you think the death penalty should be inacted on anyone?
Do you agree with Judge O’Toole’s decisions? Why or why not?
Do you think there should be another trial?
Do you think another trial would result in a different outcome?
ReplyDeleteI think the death penalty is a horrible thing but, when someone purposely endangers other people, I think they should be a death penalty. But I also believe that imprisoning someone for the rest of their life could a good result because they could realize that what the did was horrible.
I do agree with O'Toole's decision to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on death row in the first place. I agree with him because Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did horrible things to Boston which completely changes people for life. He also killed many innocent people, so he should feel their pain.
I think there should maybe give Dzhokhar Tsarnaev another trail, to try and erase all bias that might have occurred during the first trail. This could also prove Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, that he really is guilty and show him that maybe he did do bad things.
I do not think the trail will result in a different outcome. I believe this because Nicole said," it resulted in three lives lost and wounded more than 260 people" which is really bad, and I couldn't understand how this trail could be overturned.
1. The death penalty should not exist in the United States. First, the death penalty is immoral. It provides no gain to society and only causes the unnecessary death of a prisoner. Even if someone committed a terrible, heinous crime, they should not be killed because it does nothing. If one can say that murder is immoral then the death penalty is also immoral. Secondly, the cost of going through the appeals process and going through with the death penalty costs $1.26 million, while life imprisonment costs only $740,000 per prisoner, Amnesty International says. Thirdly, the death penalty is not reversible. If new evidence surfaces that someone was innocent, there is no bringing them back from death, while convicts imprisoned for life can be released. For every 10 people who have been executed, one person has been exonerated, according to NCADP.org. Many more innocent people have been executed but never exonerated. The death penalty is immoral, costly, and ineffective.
ReplyDelete2. Judge O’Toole’s decision to keep the trial in Boston compromised the fairness of the legal system and Tsarnaev’s fate. O’Toole should have dismissed the jurors following the revelation of their Facebook messages with obvious bias against Tsarnaev prior to the start of the trial. Like I said in the first response, the death penalty should not exist so O’Toole’s decision to put Tsarnaev on death row was immoral. Judge O’Toole’s decisions undermined the due process that Tsarnaev should have received.
3. There should be another trial located in another city with different jurors in order to ensure the fairness of Tsarnaev’s verdict and sentence. While he was undeniably guilty of comitting the Boston Marathon bombings, like everyone, he still has a right to due process and a retrial if his first trial was unfair.
4. A new trial would not result in a different outcome for Tsarnaev but that is not what is important about another trial. A new trial for Tsarnaev is imperative to keep the legal system as fair as possible without stains of bias. He has committed terrible crimes that resulted in many deaths and injuries but he still deserves a shot at proving his own innocence.
1. The death penalty should not exist in the United States. I agree with Bradford that the death penalty is immoral and does not benefit society in any way. By going to jail, humans can be properly reprimanded for their actions. The death penalty does not only affect the person in jail but also their families. Having a loved one in jail and having a loved one killed for their actions are both traumatizing and someone should not have to experience a loved one going through the death penalty.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Judge O’Toole should have dismissed the jurors that posted comments on facebook regarding the trial. Their comments revealed their personal biases, which could lead to an unfair trial.
3. Like anyone, Tsarnaev has the right to a fair trial without biases. This can not be accomplished in Massachusetts, so the trail should take place in another state with different jurors.
4. Another trial would not result in a different outcome for Tsarnaev, but a more fair one. Tsarnaev is undeniably guilty, but a different trial could involve fewer biases so people could focus on the facts of the trial rather than their opinions.
1) I agree with Thomas but I think it's still necessary when people have injured others and are dangerous. At the same time I think it's better if someone is given life in prison because they will actually suffer since they will be in prison without the possibility to get out. I feel that in a way the death sentence is a way out of life in prison.
ReplyDelete2)Yes, I agree with O'toole's decisions because Tsarnaev killed so many people and he deserves to suffer in a way. I think killing him would be a relief to the families and would be fair.
3) I do not think there should be another trial because it would be like giving him a second chance in life. I don't think this would be fair because he didn't give the people he killed a chance in life and he killed some children taking their opportunity of growing up.
4) I think another trial would result in a different out come because this time the jury would not be biased but I think that the outcome wouldn't change drastically since he is obviously guilty. The trial would definitely be different because it could involve fewer biases and they could focus on what he did instead of their opinions.
1, I do not think that the death penalty should be enacted on anybody. I see the penalty as a life for a life trade. I just don't think it is morally right to kill someone for their previous actions. Furthermore, if they are falsely convicted through inaccurate fingerprinting then it would like killing and innocent life. Humans do make mistakes and humans need to acknowledge that. Being on death row often complicates the families of those convicted drastically. There was even a case where a prisoner on Nevada's death row got his execution delayed more than 10 times. This created great trauma on his family as they were never sure when he was going to executed and as a result, they didn't know when to take days off from work. So I believe that the death penalty should be removed.
ReplyDelete2, I agree with Judge O'Toole's decision to have the trial to be held in Boston. The entire city of Boston is considered to be a victim of the attack as so many people were injured; around 250 according to the article. Because of the special circumstances of the attack, I think it is morally right for the trial to be held in Boston. But I agree with Bradford when it comes to the bias of the jurors. Like Bradford, I believe that Judge O'Toole should have dismissed the jurors when he knew that they had an anti-Tsarnaev bias.
3, I do believe that there should be another trial despite it being obvious that Tsarnaev is guilty. Every citizen in the U.S. should have the right to a fair trial according to the 6th amendment. So for the sake of the constitution, Tsarnaev deserves a free trial. Even if he is guilty.
4, As I stated in the previous question I believe that the outcome of the trial would have the same result of him being placed on death row. Even if the jurors were influenced by outside information they would still vote against Tsarnaev simply due to a large amount of evidence against him.
1.) I do not think the death penalty should be enacted on anybody. I think that the death penalty is the opposite of what America stands for. The death penalty takes away the opportunity to undo the person's punishment and forgiveness is a very powerful and important feeling in this world. However, I think that some crimes do deserve a definite entire life sentence. Being in a prison for that long would be a strong enough punishment prisons could force prisoners to do odd jobs as a way of paying a fraction of their debt back to society.
ReplyDelete2.) I think that O' Toole's actions were uncalled for and he only ended up shooting himself in the foot. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were tried somewhere else it the odds were it probably would have resulted in the same outcome, he still would have been put on death row. By taking away the integrity of the court case O'Toole managed to prolong Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's life as well as the court case and put himself under investigation.
3.) I think that there should be another trial because the first had a biased jury and judge. This further slims Tsarnaev's odds of being innocent, however, that small percentage chance of him being ruled innocent being taken away by bias jurors calls for a retrial.
4.) I think that it would be very unlikely that there would be a different outcome. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that he committed the crime and not much to support his case.
1) The death penalty is one of, if not the worst punishment that can be charged on somebody, and is used mostly as a consequence for murder. If someone intentionally takes a person’s or people’s lives, then I think they deserve a terrible punishment. Maybe not the death penalty because I agree with Bradford that it isn’t morally right, but definitely the rest of their life in jail. However if there is a chance that the murderer could escape from jail or somehow commit another crime with people who are not in jail, then I think they should be punished with the death penalty if there is no other option. The United States can’t risk having a murderer take any more lives, and if the death penalty is the only way to prevent this, then I think that’s what should happen.
ReplyDelete2) I think any sign of bias from the other judges should have made Judge O'Toole get rid of them immediately. Although Dzhokhar Tsarnaev murdered many people during the Boston Marathon, everyone still deserves a fair trial. Any bias from the judges shouldn’t be permitted, and Judge O’Toole should have made that happen.
3) I think there should be another trial because every person deserves a fair one, no matter what their crime was. The new trial should have different judges that are not biased, and I think it should take place in a different city to further avoid bias.
4) I don’t think another trial would result in a different outcome because Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was part of the Boston Marathon tragedy and many deaths. The new judges in the second trial would probably agree that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserves the death penalty after he was involved in the bombing.
1) I agree with most people that the death penalty should not be charged unless the circumstances are extremely drastic, but in most cases should not exist at all. The death penalty is different than any other charge because it is something irreversible. Other drastic charges, such as a life sentence, can always be changed if other evidence is presented. However, once the death penalty is done there is no way of reversing the charges.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with Natalie that Judge O'Toole should have chosen to dismiss the jurors who demonstrated having a bias. The court promises a fair trial, no matter the circumstance of the crime. A professional Judge should know the if jurors show signs of bias, they should be dismissed, as they will not provide a fair court.
3) I agree with the class that a second trial should be held in a different state with a court containing different jurors. Although there is clear evidence against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a fair court is important in making the final decision of the charges.
4) I do not expect that holding another trial will result in a different charge. Although all biases will be eliminated, the new jurors will most likely be influenced by all the clear evidence against Tsarnaev. I expect that the new court will vote to keep the death penalty charges.
1) I believe that there shouldn't be a death penalty in the United States. Similar to what Bradford said, it is immoral. Although measures should be taken for crimes as serious as murder, they do in fact deserve punishment for what they have done. It most trials, if they were convicted, they would most likely be sentenced to death row or have a life long sentence--I do believe the crime should be faced head on by the jury, but that does not mean that someone should lose their life. It takes away the chance for someone to redeem themselves and have a good life afterwards. It's also challenging to lose a love one, and it can drive you to do things that are uncalled for. In the end, the death penalty is isn't morally right and takes away someone's opportunity to have a fresh start and get the help they need.
ReplyDelete2) I do believe that everyone should have a fair trial and that there shouldn't be any bias from the judges. Even though he murdered and injured many people, everyone deserves to have the opportunity of a fair trial. Judge O'Toole did not let that happen, because he had the bias of having it held in Boston (the victim of these attacks).
3) I think there should definitely be a new trial to make the decision fair and just. The likelihood of him not being put on death row is not that high, but this trial would have different judges that did not have a bias because it would be in a different state than where he committed the crime.
4) I don't think that another trial will change much, if anything. We have set laws in place in which people will be sentenced to death row if their crime is that severe. There might be different laws set in another state and the judges might convict him of a life sentence instead, but there's not really another option. The new judge will most likely agree with the previous one and that won't change much, he will still have been convicted of the death penalty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) I think that he took lives so in theory he should pay with his own. I know this is drastic but it is the price someone has to pay for taking innocent lives.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with the judges decision and I think that there was no way to have an unbiased jury. This crime affected the entire city and nobody in Massachusetts was unaffected because of this both the judge and the jury was correct.
3) I think that there is no need for a new trial because they have the evidence and the witnesses. He has committed the crime and will pay.
4)The trial will be the same result do to the crime and who it affected. He affected thousand if not millions of people and will almost always be convicted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I’ve always bee against the death penalty ever since I learned about it. I feel if someone has done something so bad, it wouldn’t be necessary to put them on the death penalty because two wrong doesn’t really make a right. I think it would be best to just through a person who has done such bad things, in jail for life.
ReplyDelete2. I feel that Judge O’Toole could have executed the situation better without it becoming a huge deal with all the bias affecting the outcome as Natalie said. I still think that Judge O’ Toole’s choice was going to be the outcome anyway but I feel like the situation could be handled better.
3. I think there should be another trial due to the jury’s bias. If the trial is held in another area with different jurors, then the trial could run more smoothly and give a fair chance to everyone.
4. I don’t think a new trial would result in a different outcome due to how bad the crime was and due to other’s opinions, but I still think it would be worth a shot to give another chance.
1.)I believe that the death penalty is situational. People should not be allowed to live if they committed as heinous a crime as a terrorist attack. I disagree with Bradford Kimball because his source is the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty and therefore is a biased source and any statistics that go along with it have to be taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDelete2.)There was no way to have an unbiased jury when the person being judged is someone as despicable as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I think that Judge O'Toole's decision was the right one.
3.)I do think there should be another trial to follow more thoroughly with due process (incase of a mistake) and I hope this new trial will inhibit the exact same, or possibly a worse price for his horrid crimes. It will also show that the US will always serve justice even if it is so little deserved.
4.)I do not think that another trial will result in a different outcome, there is overwhelming evidence that he is guilty of all 30 offenses and he will likely be put back on death row.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/us/death-penalty-fast-facts/index.html
Delete165/1499 people on death row have been exonerated.
1. I believe that the death penalty is outdated and in an advanced society when better options are available it is wrong. While the execution was a common thing in history it does not mean that our modern society should stoop to its level. The idea of a death penalty doesn’t make much sense. If someone commits a capital crime they are likely mentally ill or have a serious issue that causes them to do this. Life in prison makes much more sense for these people. You must keep them from inflicting harm on others but at the same time not end their lives completely for being seriously flawed. When a mentally ill person makes a terrible decision they shouldn’t be disposed of and marked as inhuman and expendable. They should instead be put in a different environment that accounts for this. Life in prison is this place. I also believe that extreme prison sentences, for example, solitary confinement can be just as bad if not worse than the death penalty.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with Judge O’Toole decision to keep the trial in Boston and to redo the trial at all. The crime committed by Tsarnaev is a crime against America and society. A jury that doesn’t care about those killed in the bombings and has no bias against a terrorist will not be found. The moment anyone hears that they are trying a violent terrorist bias will appear, this cannot be avoided because of our anti-terrorism views in America today.
3. I think that there shouldn’t be another trial. The claim that the jury from Boston had a bias against a terrorist who bombed their city is ridiculous. A vast majority of Americans will have a bias against a terrorist who attempted mass murder. This is clearly an attempt to delay and exploit the fair trial system. The only result of this will be another jury who is also biased against mass murderers accuse him again. The difference between the two groups is only that one group has Facebook the other doesn’t. I agree with Natalie and Bradford that another trial may be formally needed but, it is a clear loophole in the system being exploited. This also raises a major question as to what is considered bias. If I read the newspaper and see that a man has been accused of murder and I believe he is guilty. Is my simple knowledge reason to veto my opinion, I don’t think so.
4. I believe that the results of the trial will be the same. Tsarnaev and his defense know this and they are just trying to spare him time by delaying the proceedings. Tsarnaev is clearly guilty and gathering dirt on juries won’t last long. I disagree with the usage of the death penalty but, I believe that if that is the charge, it is better the death penalty than letting this dangerous man go free. Unfortunately, life in prison isn’t being considered.
1. Taking away the life of someone who ended another’s does not spell justice to me, therefore I agree with Thomas. Action should take place, not by performing the same wrong the convict did; but instead by maybe trying to help them see things differently. It is most likely that there is something wrong with the way they think, and it could be influenced by their surroundings. The best way to combat this is by taking them to an entirely new environment, such as jail, where they can have time to reflect and hopefully change. Following their release, if they repeat an illegal action that injures others around them, the death penalty should unfortunately be enforced.
ReplyDelete2. It was a good idea to have the trials of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev held in Boston. After all, the tragic event which arose this case took place in that very city, so it would make sense for it to be like that. And considering bias, it should be the Boston jury’s decision, as the citizens of the city they have the most experience and any final statement regarding the case will greatly affect them and the rest of the city.
3. Even after all the people he injured, and all the lives he had taken, and all the families he left dented, Tsarnaev is still a human. Yes, he committed hundreds of the same crimes in only a few minutes, none of which can be reversed, but he is still human. There is a possibility that he could regret his actions and never be compelled to do them again. Giving him the death penalty won’t bring back the souls of the people he killed. Because the first trial might have been unfair, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be given another trial but to me he is still guilty.
4. If Tsarnaev’s second trial is held in another state, I don’t expect a different outcome. What the man did, should be illegal in every single state in the country, and no matter where the trial is held, he should come out guilty. This isn’t a matter of where it takes place, but how loyal they are to the law there. If the judges and the jury and strong supporters of the constitution (as they should be), then it would quickly be clear to them that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty and should receive a very severe punishment.