Early discussion under way on Boston bombing suspect avoiding death penalty

[DonViejo]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- Some very preliminary talks have been under way "for the past few days" to potentially allow Boston bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to resume providing investigators with information about the attacks in exchange for having the death penalty taken off the table, two government sources say.

The sources said such initial communications between opposing sides on a range of procedural and other issues are standard procedure.

Communications are in the very early stages, and not a sign lawyers for either side are ready to make a deal, said one source, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the private discussions. The source emphasized these are not formal negotiations, and no deals have been offered.

The discussions between prosecution and defense attorneys are at a "preliminary, delicate stage" and both refused to offer details of what either side would be willing to leverage, according to the sources. A Justice Department official said it is not accurate to suggest there are negotiations.

Full article at link

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/30/us/boston-death-penalty/index.html

[Warpy]

1. They should be focused on the difference between a live inmate

and a dead martyr because no matter how hamfisted these two idiots were, some other hot headed idiots somewhere would manage to turn the captured one into a martyr for some cause or other, especially if he were executed by the Great Satan rather than going out in a volley of explosions and gunfire with the cops like his brother.

Besides, with all we know now, most of us think it very unlikely this kid would have acted alone. His elder brother would have, but not the slacker who loved sports and smoking grass with his buddies.

[wercal]

3. I have had changing views on the death penalty over my lifetime

Its unequal application, along with the occassional exoneration of a death row inmate have made me much less supportive of it.

And, the cost to the community is huge. There was a death penalty case in the small (by population) county next to mine, and the residents will be paying for that trial for around 10 years.

So I'm usually not for it.

In my mind, the only exception should be what I term 'spectacular crimes'. By this I mean somebody who deliberately (and with great pre-meditation) kills somebody (and likely multiple people) in a deliberately public or spectacular way. So, using my line of thought, a guy who kills somebody in the commission of a robbery would not get the death penalty. This isn't because of mercy - its just because not all verdicts are correct, and there is no room for such mistakes when it comes to extinguishing a human life.

Terrorism, however, meets my self imposed criteria. Even if this guy was the 'follower' in the duo, he still did it. He still placed that bag right next to a young child and dozens of other people. He could have stopped. I don't think his inability to stand up to his brother is a good argument, and it makes me think back to the Nuremberg trials, and the flimsy defense that they were under orders. So, I would actually like to see the death penaly pursued.

One more thing - McVeigh was executed, and nobody really worried about making him a martyr. Why do we worry about making the Boston bomber a martyr, and even worse worry about retaliation. To worry about any of that is to declare terrorism to be successful. The repercussions shouldn't even be a consideration, IMHO.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I didn't think McVeigh should have been executed, either.

I am always and in all cases opposed to the death penalty. If the criteria include the "spectacular" nature of a crime, where do you draw the line? How spectacular does it have to be? What difference does it make that a murder is public rather than committed behind closed doors? First-degree murder is, by definition, premeditated. Why would a premeditated murder warrant the death penalty just because it was done in public? The victim is still just as dead. And what about serial killers? Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy (for example) killed many more people than the Tsarnaev brothers; the only reason Bundy got the death penalty and Dahmer didn't is that Florida has the death penalty and Wisconsin doesn't.

The distinction is too arbitrary. State-ordered murder is still murder, and I am against murder.

[wercal]

7. Hard to say where or how I would draw the line...

It just seems that some murders are practically for sport....and to me that's worse than a murder during a robbery. So I would categorize most serial killers as spectacular killers eligible for the death penalty.

But like I said at the outset, my views have shifted (mainly because I could never imagine myself pulling the switch) so I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. That's what I expected would happen.

Hold the DP over his head until he spills everything he knows, whatever that might be. Then send his butt off to some max security prison for the rest of his sorry life (that's pretty much what happened to the other terrorists, including Ramzi Youssef, Richard Reid and the underwear bomber). And I'm fine with that; I don't think the DP should ever be used no matter how heinous the crime, and rotting in prison prevents these yoyos from becoming martyrs.

[Cha]

5. Yes, I think so too, Velveteen Ocelot.

These weren't the usual suicide bombers.

Prison would be horrible.. did they ever think about that shit when they were busy making their bombs?

[Nye Bevan]

4. Life without parole in Supermax is acceptable IMO (nt)