Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (age 21), was sentenced to death on May 15, 2015. This inspires several reactions from me, which I'll open with the two quotes below.
Two Quotes
I recently posted these comments on-line.
QUOTE:
If DT finds Jesus* and accepts Him as his Savior, then when he dies, he'll be admitted to heaven. That's the Christian view. The Buddhist view is that he'll suffer exactly as each of his victims did over the appropriate number of reincarnations. And saying magical words like "Jesus forgive me" won't cut it. Same as what is happening to Hitler - he killed 6 million Jews, he'll be murdered 6 million times [for those crimes].
The hard part of the Buddhist view: There is no such thing as an innocent victim. DT's victims, even those most innocent in this life, paid the price for sins committed in past lives. As a result, their karmic burdens will be that much lighter in their future lives.
[finds Jesus* - yes, I know DT is a Muslim]
:UNQUOTE.
QUOTE:
So that's it, eh? Killing DT will bring back his victims? Or somehow cause missing limbs to reappear? Or give "justice" to those wronged? Face it: When most people say they want to see the cause of justice served, what they really want is revenge. The death penalty is barbaric and lessens our own nobility in its continued practice. If you really want justice, don't worry: DT will pay the karmic price for what he did. Putting him in jail for life serves [only] the [practical] purpose of keeping him from doing any more harm to society[, but in no way represents suitable punishment].
:UNQUOTE.
A Fair Trial?
First of all, it won't matter if Tsarnaev didn't get a fair trial. No judge is going to admit that and order a new trial. That's just not going to happen. Any appellate judge would be thinking, "Why order a new trial? Since the case against Tsarnaev was so strong, any new trial would also produce guilty verdicts."
Now that I got that out of the way, I'll say: This young man did not get a fair trial. DT's defense argued that the trial should be moved to Washington, DC - that holding it in Boston would be prejudicial to their client. I have to agree with the defense on this one, as this is a no-brainer. The judge had no defensible reason for insisting the trial be held in Boston. Of course, the fact that there weren't any Blacks on the jury was probably very much to his liking. He simply acted on the basis of imperial judicial prerogative.
Then there's the issue of jury selection. If someone said they opposed the death penalty, then they were automatically excluded from the jury. It would have taken only one juror opposing the death penalty for that option to fail - life imprisonment being the default option. The general population of Boston opposes the death penalty.* So to insist that only the minority who support that option could sit on this jury denies the majority. Why does the state get to make this decision? Many people oppose the death penalty for religious reasons, especially in very Catholic Boston.
Since the First Amendment bars the favoring of one religious view over another, Catholics in this case were discriminated against. In fact, if I were a Catholic about to be so disenfranchised, I would have sued for the right to be empanelled on this jury.
Citizens of the USA pride themselves on having a sense of fair play. However, outside observers would have to shake their heads in disapproval when our hypocrisy raises its ugly head as it has in this case.
The Death Penalty vs. The "Death" Penalty
The death penalty simply refers to executing a prisoner. The "death" penalty refers to the psychological death brought about by prolonged time spent behind bars in solitary confinement.
If Tsarnaev had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he most assuredly would have ended up in solitary to ensure his own safety against the wrath of the general prison population. It's about time we abolished solitary confinement, instead recognizing it for what it is - torture. While it might be unwise, in cases like Tsarnaev's, to enable direct contact with other prisoners, there's no reason why some type of indirect contact (e.g, by using a fence in the exercise area) couldn't be allowed.
Access to the internet and books should also be allowed. As for communication with the outside world (via the internet or written letters), DT should be permitted as is his due under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. However, should he even once engage in prohibited speech on the internet, his access would be reduced to "read only."
As long as the condemned is in our care, we should make some respectable effort toward his personal development. Who knows? Maybe, in some way or another, he will find salvation, if not necessarily through Jesus. Even so, sad to say, there will always be those who will refuse to forgive and will insist on continued punishment.
As for the death penalty: it should be abolished, as it has been in the European Union. However, I don't believe execution is unconstitutional, though it is a bad idea that shines an embarrassing light on our baser nature. It also doesn't do much for our collective karma.
There are USA Christian conservatives who champion capital punishment, citing "an eye for an eye." These are the same people who also preach the sanctity of life when arguing against abortion. But their sin is even greater than such hypocrisy. For once a person is executed, he has no more chance to repent and accept Jesus (or Anything or Anybody else) as Savior. However, a life sentence would give the condemned as many chances as a natural lifespan could confer.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote:
opposes the death penalty.* -
QUOTE:
BOSTON — Despite this city’s immersion in a trial that is replaying the horrific details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the vast majority of Bostonians say in a new poll that if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the admitted bomber, is found guilty, he should be sent to prison for life and not condemned to death.
:UNQUOTE [by Katharine Q. Seelye, March 23, 2015]
source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/most-boston-residents-prefer-life-term-over-death-penalty-in-marathon-case-poll-shows.html?_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment