Slashdot Mirror
Verdict Reached In Boston Bombing Trial
An anonymous reader writes "A Boston jury has reached a verdict in the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who admitted that he planted a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that left three dead and wounded 264 others. After deliberating for 11½ hours the jury has found Dzhokhar guilty on all 30 charges brought against him."
Most news analysts had a guilty verdict as a foregone conclusion, with the real question being whether the bomber would face the death penalty. It's strange that it took 11 and a half hours to reach the verdict.
Because (1) news analysts aren't juries, and (2) we try to be careful when considering whether or not to hold a man culpable for mass-murder.
Given his poor defense, I'm really not all that surprised. Though I wonder how it will flesh out in appeals if he gets the death penalty. One might argue the poor quality defense would force a retrial if they can convince an appeals court of incompetence or something like that.
What? This guy PLANTED one of the devices that killed people. I think his defense was poor because the evidence was clear that he was a willing participant in the crime.
No doubt there will be lots of appeals either way. It's the nature of the legal system in it's bend over backwards to protect the rights of criminals and assuring that their due process rights are protected. It's not evidence in the unfairness of a trial, but evidence that we are willing to expend a LOT of effort to make sure things are fair.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Given his poor defense, I'm really not all that surprised. Though I wonder how it will flesh out in appeals if he gets the death penalty. One might argue the poor quality defense would force a retrial if they can convince an appeals court of incompetence or something like that.
The defense strategy was never to argue that he was innocent, it was to argue that he should receive life in prison rather than the death penalty. That will mainly occur over the next few weeks in the sentencing phase of the trial. This first guilt phase could've been done on day 1, but the prosecution wanted to grandstand.
Ya'all do realize that the death "penalty" is actually letting the perpetrator get away with the crime, right?
Death isn't a penalty. It is the fate that every newly-minted, mewling, puking baby gets meted out to him or her as a consequence of being conceived. If it's a penalty, then why do so many seemingly loving, beaming parents sentence their own children to that fate by having them in the first place?
The penalty isn't the death, it's the forfeiture of what was going to be the rest of your life. Even in prison you would experience some moments of levity, joy, and peace, as well as many other experiences. The punishment is denying you these experiences, determining your actions have made you unfit not just for society(prison=removal from society), but of life itself. Life is the last thing a person has, the only thing that once gone can never be gotten back, and taking it away early is the ultimate punishment.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Have you ever actually been in a criminal court? Defending yourself against even an offense as trivial as a speeding ticket is enough to make it blatantly obvious how defendants get railroaded in this country.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You can't compare a civil offense like a speeding ticket to a criminal trial. The standards of proof are completely different.
In the case of a civil offense, the standard is preponderance of evidence. A cops word is pretty much good enough for that.
In a criminal trial the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. That means no reasonable person can have a reasonable doubt that you did it. HUGE difference.
Please give me an example of someone firing a gun in defense of themselves, where they didn't exceed what they have the right to do, and where they did not construct a set of circumstances to lure someone in to their death.
You have a fundamental right to self-defense. That said, you do not have the right to kill someone. You have the right to stop someone that is attempting to harm you, and sometimes stopping them means inadvertently killing them, but once the force necessary to truly stop them has been reached, then using further force could bring you up on charges.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.