Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday May 17 2015, @10:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the problem-solving dept.

The verdict is in for the Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the jury has recommended a death sentence.

The jury only needed 14 hours to reach its verdict on the 17 counts where he could be sentenced to death, and found for the death penalty for six of those. The only other choice for sentencing on those charges would have been life in prison. The attack killed 3 people and injured 264 people. It was the worst attack on US soil since the attack on 9/11.

AlterNet reports:

Their only other option was life without the possibility of release in America's toughest "super-max" prison in Colorado, which some have dubbed the "Alcatraz of the Rockies".

[...] "'No remorse, no apology'. Those are the words of a terrorist convinced he has done the right thing", US assistant attorney Steven Mellin said.

[...] Judge George O'Toole will now formally sentence Tsarnaev at a hearing expected to be held later in the year.

[...] The verdict in the federal case came despite widespread local opposition to capital punishment in Massachusetts, a largely Democratic state that abolished the death penalty in 1947.

Prominent survivors, including the parents of the youngest victim Martin Richard, had also opposed the death penalty on the grounds that years of prospective appeals would dredge up their agony.

[...] Since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988, only 79 people have been sentenced to die and only three have been executed, says the Death Penalty Information Center. Three other death verdicts were turned into life sentences after new trials were granted.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday May 18 2015, @12:46AM

    by sjames (2882) on Monday May 18 2015, @12:46AM (#184235) Journal

    That in itself is a distortion of the jury of one's peers. It would be the same as finding a jury "not opposed" to charges of felony jaywalking with a 30 year minimum.

    The defense didn't get to pre-screen the jury for not being opposed ti jihad.

    We have a defines system of jury selection that is set up to be fair to both parties, we should stick to it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4