The New York Times article titled “Supreme Court Seems Ready to Restore Death Sentence for Boston Marathon Bomber'' describes the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court this past Wednesday. Two days after the running of the 2021 Boston Marathon, the Court listened to the case regarding Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the two men who orchestrated the Boston Marathon Bombing that occurred on April 15th, 2013. The bombing took place at the finish line of the marathon, brutally killing three and greatly injuring over two hundred and fifty people.
In 2020, the United States Court of Appeals decided that though Tsarnaev was guilty on all charges previously convicted, the death penalty that was sentenced should be overruled due to inadequate questioning of the jurors and overlooked evidence.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court on Wednesday was whether the overlooked evidence was sufficient to overturn the death sentence, which is what the Court of Appeals had determined. Dzhokar's defendants claim that his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was also involved in the bombing, had been influencing him throughout the planning and execution of the attack. The evidence left out of the original court hearing was Tamerlan’s friend’s confession of being involved in a triple murder orchestrated by Tamerlan. The author of the article, Adam Liptak, says that “this evidence could have bolstered the argument from defense lawyers that Tamerlan Tsarnaev has controlled and intimidated his younger brother” (Liptak).
The question now is whether this evidence should have been used to overturn Dzhokar's death sentence. Based on questioning from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing, it appeared that the justices are leaning towards determining that the omission of the evidence is simply not enough to affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision despite the Biden administration’s temporary prohibition of the death penalty.
According to Judge Thompson, a Circuit Judge from the Court of Appeals, Dzhokar's life sentence is not being questioned, the only remaining concern is “whether the government will end his life by executing him” (Thompson).
Annie's Opinion
This Supreme Court case brings up the federal issue of the death penalty and its legality. In this case specifically, it comes down to if the courts decide that being an accomplice in this disaster is worthy of a death sentence. However, this provokes the question of the morality of lethal injection and the death penalty in general.
The death penalty is an outdated form of punishment that should not be used in the United States. We are one of the last democratic countries in the world still carrying out capital punishment and as one of the largest and most developed countries, we must progress past this cruel and ineffective form of consequence. The institution of death sentences reflects on who we are as a nation and the morals upheld by the United States. Though Biden’s administration has temporarily shut down executions, the conservative leaning Supreme Court seems to be adamant about preserving the penalty. The decision in United States v. Tsarnaev will be indicative of the United States’ continuation of the death penalty.
This is inherently wrong due to the inability to rehabilitate convicts, a lack of proof that the punishment deters crime, and the killing of those wrongfully convicted. An execution rules out any room for recovery for those convicted of capital crimes, something that is available in other highly developed countries. Though some may not be healed by counseling, ruling out the option forever is extreme and reflects poorly on the country. Additionally, according to a study by the University of Pennsylvania, there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents crime, making it an unneccesary addition to the prison systems in America (Berk).
Finally, when an inmate is wrongfully convicted, their sentence can be overturned and they can be set free from prison. However, when the extremity of the death penalty is put into place, the execution cannot be undone and justice can never be given to the prisoner. Any punishment that is irreversible will lead to devastating consequences for all who are convicted and it is simply immoral for society to impose a punishment that is equally as intolerable as the worst crime.
As for Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the Court has no reason to not allow all evidence to be heard before imposing the most final and devastating of all sentences. The significance of this court case is national, for as long as the Supreme Court upholds the death penalty, the United States will be a country accepting of immoral punishment.
Source
What's your opinion on this? How do you feel about the death penalty? Does Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserve to die for this horrible crime? Do we, as a country, have the right to kill?
Should we do a food fight on this?
Let us know!
Comments