izmir escort izmir escort antalya escort porno jigolo izmir escort bursa escort instagram hesap kapatma takipçi satışı havalandırma sistemleri porno izle instagram takipçi satın al saha betonu leadersmm.com instagram takipçi kasma alsancak escort eskişehir escort bayan Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev - Federal - Page 30
Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930
Results 291 to 300 of 300

Thread: Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev - Federal

  1. #291
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Mastro Titta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Prato, Italy
    Posts
    277
    I think the Biden administration cannot refuse to seek the death penalty again. It is a too high profile case to be simply ignored. I don't know how Garland could justify such a choice about a defiant mass murderer and terrorist like Tsarnaev. His notorious middle finger picture would be everywhere on Facebook Twitter in a matter of seconds.

  2. #292
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    905
    I want him to be back on DR where he belongs but this isn’t the same Garland from the Oklahoma City bombing days and this isn’t the same Biden from the 1994 crime bill days. It doesn’t hurt them if they don’t seek to keep him on DR. They are not the same politicians from the 90s.

    If the death penalty was so important to them they would’ve continued what Barr put in place. That being said it won’t be surprising if they kept the appeal going. Them withdrawing it cannot be ruled out either.
    Last edited by Neil; 03-22-2021 at 04:57 PM.

  3. #293
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Fact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by johncocacola View Post
    This definitely boxes the Biden administration in a corner.
    I'm more interested in the strategy they take with merits briefing. I have little doubt that the Trump administration would have used it as an opportunity to chip away at some of the terrible decisions that came out in the wake of Furman that gutted the ability of jurisdictions to limit consideration of mitigating evidence (Woodson/Lockett/Eddings, etc.). Under that line of cases, I think that the First Circuit's alternate holding about the evidence of the Waltham murders was on somewhat solid ground.

    My guess is that the Solicitor General will make a narrow argument about the FDPA and how it adequately addresses the concerns from those cases while giving the judge some discretion to filter out the nonsense. With that said, I hope that there's significant amicus involvement and that one of the amici moves to argue the case and the court grants the request.

  4. #294
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    905
    Too bad Trump wasn’t given another four years capital punishment was dealt a huge blow after he lost re-election. Given he’s always been a big death penalty guy at least he tried to give some juice to it. He gave far more energy to it than pretty much every other 2016 contender would’ve given it except for Ted Cruz.

    Had he governed far more competently and he toned himself down, he would’ve not have started the anti Trump energy that started against him in 2017. He drove out so much opposition against him and that ultimately led to his defeat in 2020.
    Last edited by Neil; 03-22-2021 at 05:19 PM.

  5. #295
    Senior Member Frequent Poster Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Space
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Put it this way it wont be surprising either way. George Gascon had a similar situation with a serial killer from the 2000s and he didnt move to challenge the sentence. The guy was handed a death sentence in 2019.
    Andrew Urdiales?
    Violence and death seem to be the only answers that people understand.

  6. #296
    Administrator Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New Jersey, unfortunately
    Posts
    3,509
    Head goon Garland and his stooges are probably fuming at this development. They were surely hoping SCOTUS would deny cert so they could passively do nothing on this high profile case. Now they have to take a direct stance by withdrawing the case or arguing it.
    Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next products.

  7. #297
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    Andrew Urdiales?
    He was known as the Hollywood Ripper.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...er-case%3F_amp

  8. #298
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,465
    Michael Gargiulo is the Hollywood Ripper. He’s waiting to be sentenced
    I believe in the death penalty

    ~James Dobson

  9. #299
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    905
    Yes the point I was making Bob is that George Gascon could’ve easily challenged his death sentence but he chose not to as evident in the article above.

    Biden and Garland can do the same thing with the Boston Bomber and not challenge it. It wouldn’t be surprising if they chose to keep Barr’s appeal.

    If they did challenge it wouldn’t surprise me either given their stance on the death penalty and how they aren’t the same politicians from the 90s when they were tough on crime.
    Last edited by Neil; 03-22-2021 at 09:08 PM.

  10. #300
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    15,770
    Opinion:

    Death is the right penalty for Dzhokar Tsarnaev

    A judge went to great lengths to ensure a fair trial for the Boston Marathon bomber.

    Under the Constitution, all criminal suspects are entitled to due process of law. But when a defendant is charged with a capital crime a crime so severe that it can be punished by death ordinary due process isnt enough.

    The level of required procedural safeguards for the accused rises to one of super due process. Now, in the case of United States v. Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the most infamous murder defendants must be granted even greater protection.

    The death penalty has long been a contentious topic in American life. A majority of the public has consistently expressed support for executing murderers, but that majority has shrunk considerably in recent years, and in many states capital punishment has been abolished.

    When Dzhokar Tsarnaev was indicted for the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, however, there was little ambivalence about fate he deserved. Fully 70 % of Americans were in favor of putting Tsarnaev to death if he was found guilty. Support for executing him cut across ideological, racial, and gender lines. That support extended to the Obama-Biden administration, which prosecuted Tsarnaev in federal court and insisted on seeking the death penalty.

    In theory, sentences of death are supposed to be reserved for the most monstrous killers the worst of the worst. In real life, it isnt always clear if a defendant fits that description.

    But it certainly fit Tsarnaev. Inflamed by jihadist fanaticism, he and his brother Tamerlan detonated shrapnel bombs at the marathon finish line, causing what the First Circuit US Court of Appeals described as battlefield-like carnage, in which blood and body parts were everywhere.

    3 bystanders graduate student Lingzi Lu, restaurant manager Krystle Campbell, and 8-year-old Martin Richard were killed. Hundreds of others were maimed. As Copley Square filled with screams of pain and panic, Tsarnaev headed to a grocery store to buy milk. Later, he and Tamerlan gunned down an MIT campus officer at point-blank range.

    Tsarnaevs legal team didnt dispute that he had committed the horrific crimes with which he was charged: It was him, defense attorney Judy Clarke said in her opening statement to the jurors. Tsarnaev himself admitted that he had committed multiple murders and caused irreparable damage.

    On April 8, 2015, he was found guilty on all 30 charges brought against him. Five weeks later, the jury returned a verdict of death.

    Yet last summer, the Court of Appeals threw out Tsarnaevs death sentence. It ruled that District Judge George OToole Jr., who ran the trial, did not meet the standard of fairness required in selecting the jury, since he neglected to examine each potential jurors kind and degree of prior exposure to the case. In other words, it held that Tsarnaev was denied due process and an impartial jury.

    Was he, though?

    In fact, OToole went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that Tsarnaev would get a fair trial. He began by summoning 1,373 potential jurors, each of whom was required to answer 100 questions, many of them quite personal, about their lifestyle, background, education, employment, family, and religion.

    They were asked about their social-media habits, their views of lawyers and police, their political activism, and their opinion of Muslims and immigrants. They had to itemize the newspapers, talk shows, and TV broadcasts they got information from, and were probed about what they may have read, heard, said, or written about the marathon bombing.

    Based on their answers, the judge eliminated all but 256 of the prospective jurors, each of whom was individually interviewed over the next month, with considerable input from defense lawyers, before a jury was finally impaneled. When some of OTooles pretrial rulings were appealed, the First Circuit backed him up; his jury-selection process, it said, had been thorough and appropriately calibrated to expose bias, ignorance, and prevarication.

    Yet that only scratches the surface of the due process protections extended to Tsarnaev.

    As with all capital defendants in federal court, he was entitled to two lawyers, one of whom had to be an expert in death-penalty cases. He was given money to pay for experts and jury consultants. His lawyers were granted 20 peremptory challenges (the right to reject a potential juror without giving a reason). He was protected too by the unanimity requirement Tsarnaev could be found guilty only if all 12 jurors agreed that he committed the crimes and that any mitigating factors in his defense were outweighed by aggravating factors and that the appropriate penalty was not life imprisonment but death. Had a single juror disagreed, Tsarnaev would not have been sentenced to death and prosecutors could not have retried him.

    So why did the appeals court overturn the death sentence? Because, it claimed, in such a high-profile case the judge should have delved even more deeply into what potential jurors might have gleaned from the media.

    Learning that prospective jurors read, say, The Boston Globe daily and have seen a lot of coverage about the case, said the court in its opinion, is not the same as learning that they read Globe articles quoting civic leaders saying Dzhokar should die.

    Its a bizarre objection. Yes, jurors who followed coverage of the case would likely have seen stories quoting supporters of executing Tsarnaev. They were equally likely to have learned of prominent figures who opposed punishing him with death. Requiring prospective jurors to disclose every opinion expressed in every story they may have read or viewed about an event of such vast public interest is not a formula for making juries more impartial. But its an excellent way to make jury selection more intrusive and time-consuming.

    However the Supreme Court rules, nothing will change the fact that Tsarnaev is guilty of one of the worst atrocities in Bostons history. Or the fact that an impartial jury, after weighing all the evidence, unanimously agreed that for the terrible crimes he committed, he deserves the worst penalty our system of justice allows. Tsarnaev was not deprived of due process. He ought to be deprived of his life.

    (source: Opinion; Jeff Jacoby, Antelope Valley Press)
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    "Men have called me mad; but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence"
    - Edgar Allan Poe

Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •