The venue for ending this type of sentencing and the prolonged appeals and repeating effects on the jury is to address the fact the United States Constitution does not provide for the death penalty.
It is not the jurors responsibility to decide the death penalty is unconstitutional. It is the jurors responsibility to carry out the law as provided to them through the prosecutors and judge.
The Constitution calls upon citizens to carry out judgement within a jury. I am confident every juror that was chosen was asked if they had a moral objection to the death penalty. I am more than confident the prosecutors understand how people can object to the death penalty depending on their religion and or personal values and choices. It was not the duty of the prosecutors to find people who would deliver 'a certain type of verdict' that would be a political decision. It was the prosecutor's responsibility to carry out the law. The difficult aspect of this sentence is that the State of Massachusetts doesn't recognize the death penalty, but, the crime crossed into federal statues and that is where there is recognition of the death penalty.
Jurors and prosecutors only seek to carry out the law. In doing so they answer to the citizens. This is a representative democracy where representatives elected are suppose to reflect the values of their constituents. That was once true in the USA. On a federal basis the elected Congress, Executive Branch and Judiciary recognize the federal sentencing.
We heard today the decisions unanimously on how the prosecutors had found all the requirements to carry out a death penalty. The requirements are clear. The jury was charged with the proceedings and the qualifications. In working through the requirements for the death penalty, the jurors found the crimes met with guilty verdicts.
For those that feel strongly about recapturing our Constitution and ending the death penalty there is a political process that has to be rendered to end it. It can be a state process and if there are enough states that eliminate the death penalty, there can be an amendment to the federal constitution. Now, why an amendment if the death penalty is considered unconstitutional. There are states within the United States that will commit to ending the death penalty. An Amendment will end the argument.
Let me introduce an idea if a challenge is to go forward. This is necessary to bring about the correct focus. Proponents to the death penalty state it is a deterrent. I would not expect the Tsarnaev Brothers to know the impacts of our federal laws. Anyone is going to point to the fact this was a terrorist act against the USA and it was. Absolutely. It was an act based upon a belief system the Tsarnaev Brothers wanted to have as the basis of life in the USA. That is treason. Terrorism both domestic and foreign is an act against the country.
Here is the question:
"Did the Tsarnaev Brothers give thought to the fact Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty before they caused the deaths, maiming, hardship and impact on the peace within the borders of the USA?"
I am not going to answer that question for you. That is from me for everyone that believes the death penalty is a blight upon this country. Now. Plot the course forward to bring about the change needed for some of the heinous practices in the country, including the mentally ill.
It is not the jurors responsibility to decide the death penalty is unconstitutional. It is the jurors responsibility to carry out the law as provided to them through the prosecutors and judge.
The Constitution calls upon citizens to carry out judgement within a jury. I am confident every juror that was chosen was asked if they had a moral objection to the death penalty. I am more than confident the prosecutors understand how people can object to the death penalty depending on their religion and or personal values and choices. It was not the duty of the prosecutors to find people who would deliver 'a certain type of verdict' that would be a political decision. It was the prosecutor's responsibility to carry out the law. The difficult aspect of this sentence is that the State of Massachusetts doesn't recognize the death penalty, but, the crime crossed into federal statues and that is where there is recognition of the death penalty.
Jurors and prosecutors only seek to carry out the law. In doing so they answer to the citizens. This is a representative democracy where representatives elected are suppose to reflect the values of their constituents. That was once true in the USA. On a federal basis the elected Congress, Executive Branch and Judiciary recognize the federal sentencing.
We heard today the decisions unanimously on how the prosecutors had found all the requirements to carry out a death penalty. The requirements are clear. The jury was charged with the proceedings and the qualifications. In working through the requirements for the death penalty, the jurors found the crimes met with guilty verdicts.
For those that feel strongly about recapturing our Constitution and ending the death penalty there is a political process that has to be rendered to end it. It can be a state process and if there are enough states that eliminate the death penalty, there can be an amendment to the federal constitution. Now, why an amendment if the death penalty is considered unconstitutional. There are states within the United States that will commit to ending the death penalty. An Amendment will end the argument.
Let me introduce an idea if a challenge is to go forward. This is necessary to bring about the correct focus. Proponents to the death penalty state it is a deterrent. I would not expect the Tsarnaev Brothers to know the impacts of our federal laws. Anyone is going to point to the fact this was a terrorist act against the USA and it was. Absolutely. It was an act based upon a belief system the Tsarnaev Brothers wanted to have as the basis of life in the USA. That is treason. Terrorism both domestic and foreign is an act against the country.
Here is the question:
"Did the Tsarnaev Brothers give thought to the fact Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty before they caused the deaths, maiming, hardship and impact on the peace within the borders of the USA?"
I am not going to answer that question for you. That is from me for everyone that believes the death penalty is a blight upon this country. Now. Plot the course forward to bring about the change needed for some of the heinous practices in the country, including the mentally ill.
