On December 12 2019, the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s lawyers argued an appeal before a three judge panel that their client did not receive an impartial trial. Tsarnaev’s lawyers argued that the trial held in 2015 was unfair due to the jury selection which was biased against Tsarnaev. They also argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals that Judge O’Toole should not have permitted the trial to be held in Boston because Boston was seen as the “victim” in the terrorist attacks. Robert Bloom, a professor of law at Boston College, has stated that trials attracting attention from the public are usually moved to a different state. Nancy Gertner, a professor at Harvard Law School said, “Boston was the victim and not just conceptually, but also everyone was victimized by the lockdown.” She also mentioned that at the time of the trial in 2015 the city was commemorating the second anniversary of the attack and the city had “Boston Strong” displayed everywhere. The defence attorneys argued that a couple of jurors were tainted because of prior personal posting about the case on social media. One juror said on Twitter that Tsarnaev was a “piece of garbage” and she also did not mention that she was sheltered in place during the search for Tsarnaev. In addition another juror was encouraged by his friend on Facebook to “get on the jury and send Tsarnaev to jail where he will be taken care of.” Federal prosecutors rejected the defense’s argument that posting on social media caused a bias. Furthermore the defense will also argue that they were not allowed to show evidence that Tsarnaev, who was only about 20 years old at the time of the bombing, was under the influence of his older brother, Tamerlan, who was known to be involved in the murder of three other individuals. Use this NPR article to help answer the questions.
- Do you think that Tsarnaev received a fair trial?
- Do you feel safe in a crowded place such as a subway or a crowded city area.
- If Tsarnaev is given another trial outside of Massachusetts will there be any difference in the result?
- If you knew or were close to somebody who was affected by the bombings would you want to give Tsarnaev another trial?
Despite some bias, I believe that Dzhokar Tsarnaev received a fair trial. Although Boston has a bias against Tsarnaev because they can are the victims of the bombing, the same result would have happened among any other courtroom accross the United States. Tsarnaev and his brother injured and killed many people who participated in the Boston marathon so, he would be worthy of the death penalty in any state, no matter the bais. Also, the jury selected may have had some bias against Tsarnaev, but with a nonbias juryman, the same result would have happened. Overall, the bias in the court would not affect Tsarnaev’s sentence because of the magnitude of his crime.
ReplyDeleteI feel safe in a crowded area because I have never witnessed a terrorist attack. The fear of a terrorist attack is not enough to take over my mental state when I am in a crowded space. Even though I feel safe in a crowded space, I feel safer at home. I would know if there is a terrorist attack, it would be in an area with a lot of people. I could imagine for someone affected by the Boston bombing that they would fear spaces with many people. Hopefully, with advanced security, people will have less paranoia.
If Tsarnaev is given another trial outside of Boston, the result will not differ. Tsarnaev and his brother “took the lives of 8-year-old Martin Richard from the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, 23-year-old Lingzi Lu, a Boston University graduate student from China among others” (Martin) so he would be worthy of the death penalty in any state, no matter the bais. For instance, if someone murdered nine people in Boston, they would be sentenced with the death penalty, and Boston wouldn’t be the victim.
If I knew or were close to somebody who was affected by the bombings, I would not want to give Tsarnaev another trial. I wouldn’t want Tsarnaev to have another chance even if I wasn’t affected by the attack. Tsarnaev has been a proven threat to society, and I wouldn’t want the risk of him escaping prison.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I think that Tsarnaev did not get a fair trial. If you killed someone and their relative was choosing your punishment, you'd get a bad one. This is what is happening with Boston. The residents of Boston are biased against him because he terrorized them. If someone poses a threat to society, they should be investigated, but fairly.
ReplyDelete2. I generally feel safe in large areas or crowds, due to the fact that I'm usually in a safe place. Even when I'm not, as long as an attacker is without a gun, I would be able to defend myself from them. This I owe partially to my size, but because I live in a very safe area, I don't have to worry about such things.
3. If Tsarnaev gets a trial outside of Massachusetts, the result will be the same. If someone kills. I agree with Rhys in this because he did kill people, so there's no way to say that he's innocent. No matter what, he will be punished. His crime was inexcusable.
4. If I knew or were close to somebody who was affected by the bombings, I wouldn't mind Tsarnaev getting a second trial because the outcome would be the same. Like I said earlier, murder and acts of terrorism are inexcusable, so the outcome would not change no matter what.
1. Although there was some bias, I think Tsarnaev received a fair trial. Saying the state where the court took place was the reason he went to jail makes no sense. He killed and hurt lots of people and no matter where you are it would be treated the same.
ReplyDelete2.I feel safe in crowded areas because I've never witnessed any sort of terrorist attack. But if I were to be one of the many people who was there when the bombing happened I wouldn't. The fact that something so big happened at that time and place next to all those people, would make the victims fear large groups in the public. Like Ali, I live in a safe area, and I don't have to worry about things like that.
3. I don't think the setting of the trial is why he is in jail. He bombed a marathon full of innocent people. It is illegal in every state, he should go to jail regardless.
4.If I knew or were close to somebody who was affected by the bombings, I wouldn't want him getting a second trial. He is a proven threat to the public and giving him a second chance would just increase his chance of getting out of this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I agree with Ali that there was surely some bias to the trial Tsarnaev received, as it was conducted in the Boston courthouse. Boston lawyers most likely felt more inclined to convict Tsarnaev because he committed a horrid crime in their city. However, there should be a new trial since although Tsarnaev is guilty, it is very important to have fair trials. Without a fair court system in the United States, many disastrous situations could occur, such as the Salem Witch Trials. Tsarnaev should receive a fair trial in order to uphold the traditions and values of the United States court system.
ReplyDelete2. I take the subway to and from school everyday, so I generally feel safe because it is routine. Massachusetts is also one of the safest states in the Union, and Boston does not have a very high crime rate. However, with the rise of gun violence in the United States, I do feel slightly more wary about it than I used to. There will always be the threat of crime in public places, so I try not to think about it, but it is definitely not a nonexistent threat.
3. I think the court may be slightly less harsh and more neutral towards Tsarnaev. However, I think the death penalty will still be used. Similar to the last trial, he could be flown to a state with the death penalty and put on death row. I think a better punishment for inexcusable crimes such as Tsarnaev’s would be life in prison, but there is probably no way to circumvent the death penalty in this case. The important part of giving Tsarnaev another trial is to protect the fairness of the court in the United States, even though Tsarnaev is most definitely guilty.
4. If I knew someone who was affected by the Boston Marathon bombings, I would emotionally feel less inclined to give him another trial, but I would still probably support it. The outcome of the trial would most likely be the same, like I stated in #3. Thus, it would be more important to protect the values and traditions of the United States Court system, as it is essential to hold fair trials.
1. I agree with Rhys that despite certain bias, Tsarnaev received a fair trial. No matter where the trial took place the same result would have come of it. Him and brother caused so much danger to people participating in the Boston Marathon, along with people in close proximity. So, the punishment he gets/got is well deserved.
ReplyDelete2. While I will never know the events that will occur when I'm in a crowded area, I am still not scared. I have never witnessed any sort of terror attack, so I believe I am in a safe space, and if something were to go wrong, I would have people surrounding me ready to help. Additionally, I live in a safe environment, so it is unlikely that anything bad will ever happen near me, and if it does, I know I have somewhere safe to go.
3. If Tsarnaev has another trial outside of the state, the result will remain the same. Where the trial is held is regardless, this crime will always be against the law, and consequences shouldn't change depending on where trials take place.
4. If I knew or was close with someone effected by the bombing I certainly would not want him to be given another trial. I wouldn't want him to possibly have the chance to be free, while someone I know is still suffering from him doing.
3.
1. I agree with Rhys that even though there was some bias, Tsarnaev received a fair trial. It shouldn't matter where you are, what he did is deserving of a death penalty. He injured and killed many people.
ReplyDelete2. I feel safe in crowded areas because like others have said, I haven't ever witnessed a terrorist attack. I also don't really think about stuff like that often or when I'm in crowded areas, so I don't really worry about it. But if I had actually witnessed any attack of some sort I would probably be paranoid in crowded areas.
3. I think anywhere else the result would remain the same. What Tsernauv and his brother did was terrible. They took multiple peoples lives and injured many others. That crime is bad enough for a death penalty and it shouldn't matter where it is given.
4. If I knew or was close to anyone that was affected by this, I wouldn't want to give Tsarnaev a second trial. Theres no point in giving him a second chance, it's just taking a risk. As Rhys said he is a threat.
1. I agree with Rhys, regardless of the bias present during the trial, Tsarnaev receive a fair trial overall. During the marathon bombing, Boston was definitely classified as the victim. However, the correct sentencing and outcome of the trial was fair. No matter where the trial was located, Tsarnaev would have been penalized the same way.
ReplyDelete2. Regardless of others' experiences in crowds, I still generally feel safe in public or crowded areas. Although, knowing all the possibilities that could occur I am always cautious in case anything were to happen. I will never feel totally safe due to all the violence that has occurred in our country, but since I have never first hand experience in an attack or bombing I feel less conscious than others may be.
3. Regardless of the location Tsaraev's trial is held at, the outcome will stay consist. He commited murder, and every state is awrae of the conciquenses he should recive. Every state has around the same values, which is why the outcome will most likely not change when Tsarnmev's case is taken to a different court.
4. No, if I were close to someone who was affected by the bombing, I wouldn't want Tsarnev to have another trial. The possibility and fear of him being released, and knowing all the injuries and hardships he has caused would create hesitation.
ReplyDelete1. I agree with Rhys when he says that Tsarnaev received a fair trial. He killed helped kill three people and injured hundreds. I do believe that the jurors did not like Tsarnaev, but I don’t think that it is specifically because the case was in Massachusetts, but that he was a perpetrator of a terrorist attack.
2. I haven’t ever experienced an attack that could possibly compare to something like this, so I am not afraid of being in a crowded place. Like people have said if I witnessed the bombing I would be frightened and paranoid. But also I live in a very safe neighborhood and as Shane said, “there will always be the threat of crime in public places, so I try not to think about it, it is not a nonexistent threat.” The fact that on a daily basis I am not usually in an extremely crowded place, means that I am usually not scared, but that the threat of violence will never be completely resolved.
3. I think that If Tsarnaev is given another trial it will still be the end result. He was a leader of a terrorist attack on hundreds of innocent people. Just because time has passed or it is in a different state doesn’t mean that the facts are any different, so neither should the punishments.
4. While somebody that I was close to wasn’t hurt by the bombs, my aunt once removed was. My family and I were out of town or something and she stayed at our apartment during the race. She ended up unhurt, and was back at our apartment by the time that the first bomb went off, and while she called almost immediately after she she saw the news. The moments of uncertainty were extremely unnerving. I do not want to give Tsarnaev another trial.
I agree with Shane that Tsarnaev’s trial had some bias involved, as the trial was held in Boston. Judges in Boston are more likely to give Tsarnaev a harsher sentence, as Boston was the victim in this act of terror. However, this does not change the fact that Tsarnaev killed and injured many people. Although there may have been some bias, the result probably would have been the same in any other state.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel safe in crowded areas. I have never been in a situation where my life has been in danger in a crowded area, so I have no reason to feel scared. Although I live a few blocks away from where the bombing happened, I wasn’t at the sight personally and nobody that I knew was injured.
Like I said earlier, the fact that he killed and injured many people won’t change depending on which state he is being charged in. Killing people in an act of terrorism is a capital crime and will be punished accordingly.
If someone I knew was affected by the bombings, I would definitely be against him getting another trial. He is a threat to the public, and many people suffered because of his actions.
1. I Agree with Ali that the Boston Marathon bomber did not get an fair and unbiased trial. The judge and jury in the trial were biased because the attack affected them personally as people living in Boston, which was considered the victim of the attacks. While Tsarnaev is guilty, the case should be retried in a state where there could be an impartial trial.
ReplyDelete2. I generally feel safe in crowded places, as I am accustomed to it, from living in the city my whole life. I have never been in a situation where I felt that my life was being threatened. Although I live very close to where the bombing happened, it didn't affect me personally, so it doesn't make it seem less safe.
3. If the case is retried there will most likely not be a different result. While the court will be more neutral on the topic, the death penalty will still be used. Tsarnaev killed many people and injured even more, which makes him deserving of the death penalty.
4. If I was close to someone who was affected by the bombings, I would still want him to get a fair trial. Either way, he will still be punished, and it is important to keep all trials fair and impartial.
I agree with Rhys and everyone else who agreed with him that Tsarnaev’s trial surely had some bias to it but it was still a fair trial. It would not matter whether the jury was bias or unbiased, he still would’ve got the same sentence. 17 of his 30 charges could get him the death penalty so I don’t think that the location of the trial really mattered, he was still going to get the death penalty for performing such an inhumane act.
ReplyDeleteI feel safe in crowded areas because the chance of an attack happening is very unlikely. Obviously, I know that a terrorist attack would probably be done in an area concentrated with people. It is scary to think about but it not enough to make me feel like I’m in danger in crowded areas.
If Tsarnaev gets another trial outside Massachusetts I do not think that the result would be different. As I said earlier, 17 of his 30 charges can be punished with the death penalty so there isn’t really a way around it. At this point, I believe that Tsarnaev is just scared of death and is looking for things that could allow him not to have the death penalty. I do not think the result of the trial would change if it was relocated.
If I knew or was close to someone that was affected by the Boston bombing then I would not want Tsarnaev to have another trial. I would not there to be a chance for his death penalty to be taken away.
Comments from Paul:
ReplyDelete1. I agree with Ali that Tsarnaev’s trial was not fair because of the location of the crime. Because Tsarnaev was the person who did the dirty work, many fail to see things from another perspective which could lead to an unfair trial. Tsarnaev is definitely not getting off the hook for what he did but his background and the attack should be further investigated to find out the entire story.
2. Having lived in the most populated country in the world for 7 years, I feel confortable in crowded areas. Even though through many occasions we have seen that most people won't help someone thats in danger or being harmed, I still get the feeling that I am in some way protected by lots of people in crowded areas.
3. If Tsarnaev was given a trial outside of MA, the results would most likely be very similar. Tsarnaev committed a capital crime and there is no possible way he could get less than 40 years in prison which is pretty close to life in prison. Him having committed a mass murder doesn't leave much room for the judges to decide on.
4. I personally would at first be enraged and demand a death sentence but after I calm my self, on top of a at least 50 years in prison sentence, I would like to have the authorities investigate the case to find out the entire story because he might have been a victim too.
1. I agree with Ali that Tsarnaev’s trial was not fair because of the location of the crime. Because Tsarnaev was the person who did the dirty work, many fail to see things from another perspective which could lead to an unfair trial. Tsarnaev is definitely not getting off the hook for what he did but his background and the attack should be further investigated to find out the entire story.
ReplyDelete2. Having lived in the most populated country in the world for 7 years, I feel confortable in crowded areas. Even though through many occasions we have seen that most people won't help someone thats in danger or being harmed, I still get the feeling that I am in some way protected by lots of people in crowded areas.
3. If Tsarnaev was given a trial outside of MA, the results would most likely be very similar. Tsarnaev committed a capital crime and there is no possible way he could get less than 40 years in prison which is pretty close to life in prison. Him having committed a mass murder doesn't leave much room for the judges to decide on.
4. I personally would at first be enraged and demand a death sentence but after I calm my self, on top of a at least 50 years in prison sentence, I would like to have the authorities investigate the case to find out the entire story because he might have been a victim too.
1. I do not think that Tsarnaev's trial was fair, because of the bias based on the location. Tsarnaev’s trial was happening in the same place that he committed his crimes, so peoples judgement was affected, because it was personal to them. This does not mean that the other state he would go to would not sentence him to the death penalty, In fact that is likely the case. In the U.S. it is one of our values that the court is truthful, this would be a logical reason to change the location.
ReplyDelete2. Living In Massachusetts where it is usually pretty safe, has generally made it easy to stand in crowded places. There is always a chance though shown by the Boston bombing so I sometimes get a reminder of how easily something bad could happen.
3.I agree with Paul, Tsarnaev’s trial would have gone the exact same way just with out the bias. Tsarnaev’s actions would have been impactful anywhere, so wherever he was sent the people there would think the same thing.
4.If I knew someone who was affected my the Boston bombing I would not want Tsarnaev to have another trail. Because of my bias against him I would not want to give him a second chance. I would have thought that he took so many lives that he shouldn't get another chance on his own.