Jury selection for Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is becoming difficult, some jurors advocating the - Polidicks

[quote]In Massachusetts, they've run the gamut from Quakers to witches, pirates, anarchists and gangsters. Each high-profile execution here seemed to mirror the deepest fears of its time. For federal prosecutors, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is the perfect monster for the post-9/11 era. He's an accused terrorist; authorities say he downloaded al Qaeda literature on his laptop before he and his brother set off two pressure cooker bombs at the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon Massachusetts abolished the death penalty more than 30 years ago and last carried out a death sentence in 1947. But a place that hanged 26 people for practicing witchcraft can't deny its brutal, eye-for-an-eye past. Still, there's plenty of ambivalence about capital punishment in Boston's DNA, and that makes picking a jury to decide Tsarnaev's fate all the more challenging.[B] The state might not have the death penalty, but the feds do. And they think Tsarnaev is a poster boy for capital punishment. [/B]His crimes, if he is convicted, include the murder of an 8-year-old boy -- raising the bar for heinousness and cruelty. [B]Asked whether they'd be able to sentence Tsarnaev to die by injection, the answers from his potential jurors range from "absolutely" to "no way" to somewhere in between: "I'm not wicked opposed to the death penalty."[/B] The people with the strongest opinions -- those on the extreme ends of the juror questionnaire rating scale -- are the least likely to make the jury here. But as the past 19 days of juror quizzing has shown, there's a whole lot of middle for such a hot-button topic. [B]It's no surprise, really. A 2013 poll by the Boston Globe showed that just a third of Boston's residents favor the death penalty for Tsarnaev; two-thirds would choose life in prison as his sentence.[/B] It's a story that has been underscored, one by one, by those called to serve on Tsarnaev's jury. They sit at the end of a long wooden conference table, surrounded by lawyers and a jury consultant as they answer questions posed by U.S. District Court Judge George O'Toole. When he is finished, he passes the prospect off to the lawyers. We can't see their faces, but with many potential jurors, their body language says "deer in the headlights."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/us/tsarnaev-13th-juror-selection-history/index.html[/url]

With such a high-profile case it's basically impossible to get an impartial jury. I'm not familiar with US law, but considering it happened in Massachusetts, doesn't that mean capital punishment won't happen at all ever? Even if the feds get involved?

[QUOTE=Dermock;47192504]With such a high-profile case it's basically impossible to get an impartial jury. I'm not familiar with US law, but considering it happened in Massachusetts, doesn't that mean capital punishment won't happen at all ever? Even if the feds get involved?[/QUOTE] The federal government has, for whatever reason, the death penalty. But I'm not totally sure what could happen, the article seems to not be sure either.

The fact is, this is a death penalty case because it is being tried in federal court, not by the state of Massachusetts. So the jury members can't be opposed to the death penalty, because if they find the defendant guilty, he could be sentenced to death. Also his atty has veto power over any jury candidate, so they will probably nix anybody who firmly believes in killing the guy. Also because the trial is being held in a place that does NOT have the death penalty, but is under a jurisdiction that DOES have the death penalty, it adds a whole new level of confusion, even though being called for a federal jury is a separate process under a separate authority than for a state or county jury. So yeah, I imagine this is going to be lots of fun.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47192523]The federal government has, for whatever reason, the death penalty. But I'm not totally sure what could happen, the article seems to not be sure either.[/QUOTE] I thought the Federal death penalty was reserved for stuff like treason and Soviet spys. Though I image terrorism would fit the bill. I'm not sure though.

[QUOTE=OvB;47192696]I thought the Federal death penalty was reserved for stuff like treason and Soviet spys. Though I image terrorism would fit the bill. I'm not sure though.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is possible that Tsarnaev could be put to death for terrorism. His isn't the first death penalty case for terrorism since 9/11

[quote]"I'm not wicked opposed to the death penalty."[/quote] Spoken like a true Boston native.

The Feds are pushing for the death penalty, they really want this guy to get the needle (a plea deal [fuck that anyway] fell through specifically because the Feds refused to take the death penalty off the table). Since it's a Federal case and not a state case they can still get the death penalty regardless of Massachusetts banning it. [QUOTE=OvB;47192696]I thought the Federal death penalty was reserved for stuff like treason and Soviet spys. Though I image terrorism would fit the bill. I'm not sure though.[/QUOTE] First degree murder, massive drug trafficking, terrorism, murder or attempted murder of witnesses, jurors, or court officers will also qualify you for the federal death penalty. There's a bunch of shit that will get you the federal needle. They executed Timothy McVeigh after the Oklahoma City Bombing, if you recall.

[QUOTE=Dermock;47192504]I'm not familiar with US law, but considering it happened in Massachusetts, doesn't that mean capital punishment won't happen at all ever? Even if the feds get involved?[/QUOTE] He is being tried federally, which means the trial is bound by federal law instead of Massachusetts law. Since it is possible to get the death penalty under federal law, and he has pleaded not guilty to the crimes he is practically guaranteed to have committed, the dude might as well be dead already.

[quote]His crimes, if he is convicted, include the murder of an 8-year-old boy -- raising the bar for heinousness and cruelty.[/quote] I feel like there is some lack of sense of proportion in this article.

[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;47195414]I feel like there is some lack of sense of proportion in this article.[/QUOTE] You're missing the significance of what that entails, a prosecutor would hone in on the 'model victims' and make them the focal piece of their legal and PR strategy. If a pedophile gets murdered by a parent of one of their victims they will shape their defense based on the fact he was a pedo and he deserved to die (in the eyes of most people we know anyways). That would be followed up by the defense team hammering in the mental images of the supposed pedos crimes to soften the juries view on the defendant and try to return a more favorable verdict for their client. Now reverse that and that's what they'll do, they will show that kid as one of the prime victims to try and hammer down a guilty verdict. It will work.

It's obviously not going to happen, but what does everyone think would be the result of a not guilty verdict?

I mean, the most impartial jury we could get in a terrorism trial would be foreigners probably. Just import some Canadians. [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Smoot;47197249]It's obviously not going to happen, but what does everyone think would be the result of a not guilty verdict?[/QUOTE] A bunch of gun toting rednecks will probably lynch mob the guy as well as innocent bystanders. Fox news will spin it as how the Muslim terrorism Obang-a-rang is abusing his executive power to protect his ISIS WMD buddies from real murican justice. They'll then throw some shit in there about thinking about children, 9/11 and whatever else.

So since the article doesnt say at all if the feds are trying him or if Mass. is. I'd assume the feds are since it involves terrorism. I think it would be weird to have the state prosecute such a case. If the feds have the case, he will certainly face the death penalty; and will probably get it. If the state has the case, he will probably end up with life in prison.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47199327]So since the article doesnt say at all if the feds are trying him or if Mass. is. I'd assume the feds are since it involves terrorism. I think it would be weird to have the state prosecute such a case. If the feds have the case, he will certainly face the death penalty; and will probably get it. If the state has the case, he will probably end up with life in prison.[/QUOTE] I wish I could rate you "bad reading."

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;47199579]I wish I could rate you "bad reading."[/QUOTE] I read your comment(s). The entire article is written as if its being held by the state.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47199629]I read your comment(s). The entire article is written as if its being held by the state.[/QUOTE] Except where it refers to federal prosecutors. [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] In the very beginning of the second paragraph

Hey, they want to fly me out there, pay for my hotel, feed me, transport me to/from the courts, and reimburse me for my time not at home working... I'll go be an impartial Juror. I'm actually sort of curious to see what he has to say, or at least what his lawyers have to say...