Mar 8, 2014
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the Future of the Death Penalty on Trial
Posted on Feb 3, 2014
By Bill Blum
When accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is brought to trial later this year or early next, the life of the 20-year-old naturalized citizen won’t be the only thing at stake. In a very real way, the future of the death penalty—a barbaric relic of a bygone era abolished by more than two-thirds of the world’s nations—will also be on trial.
Legally, the decision to pursue execution was made by Attorney General Eric Holder. At Holder’s instruction, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts filed a detailed eight-page Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty on Jan. 30.
In the broadest sense, there are at least two reasons for Holder’s decision: First, the political backdrop of the continuing war on terror makes it imperative that the Obama administration appear strong in the face of danger.
Of course, there’s no explicit reference either to the president or the “war on terror” in the Notice of Intent. But the word “terrorism” appears in the document six times. The Notice recounts that Tsarnaev (who was born in Kyrgyzstan and whose family hails from Chechnya) “received asylum from the United States; obtained citizenship and enjoyed the freedoms of a United States citizen; and then betrayed his allegiance to the United States by killing and maiming people in the United States,” crimes the document characterizes as acts of “terrorism” rather than simply acts of murder, mayhem or aggravated assault. We are urged not only to condemn Tsarnaev but also to fear him.
The politics of fear have also made and broken political careers in this country, consigning 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis to a humiliating defeat to George H.W. Bush after a Republican PAC ran a television attack ad about a weekend prison furlough Dukakis supposedly approved as governor of Massachusetts for convicted murderer Willie Horton. By contrast, the execution statistics racked up by George W. Bush while governor of Texas bolstered his tough-on-crime image and helped pave his way to the White House.
The capital case against Tsarnaev offers more of the same politics, except with foreign or foreign-born terrorists replacing marauding racial minorities like Horton, an African-American, as the fearsome malefactors. As a matter of constitutional principle, no one interested in due process should be swayed by fear. Standing alone, fear of the accused doesn’t justify another killing, even if ordered by a court and jury, especially when sentencing the accused to life in prison without the possibility of parole is a viable option.
The second reason behind Holder’s decision to seek the death penalty, however, is less easily countered: that the 30 federal offenses alleged against Tsarnaev are so severe that capital punishment is the only morally appropriate response. Among other crimes, Tsarnaev is alleged to have intentionally used a weapon of mass destruction near the finish line of the marathon, killing three people, the youngest an 8-year-old boy. At least 260 others were injured, including 16 who required amputations. The carnage, massive in scale, was inflicted on a crowd of innocents.
The Notice of Intent lays out the case for execution point by excruciating point. The names of the homicide victims—Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard—are repeated in mantra fashion over and over, coupled with the name of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus police officer, Sean Collier, whom Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlin allegedly shot as they made their getaway from the bombing site. The younger Tsarnaev also faces non-capital murder charges in Collier’s killing in state court in Massachusetts, which no longer has a death penalty.
1 2 NEXT PAGE >>>
Next item: We’re Losing This Drug War
New and Improved Comments