With the surviving Boston bomber being found guilty on all 30 counts the question now turns to how he should be punished for his crime.
Personally I believe there are states where the death penalty is given out far too easily, as evident by those who years later end up being cleared by evidence that wasn't available during their trials. As a result I believe it should be reserved for cases where there is no doubt to the person's guilt.
In the case of the surviving member of the two Boston bombers, there is no doubt he was behind the crime with his brother. Even the defense of the living bomber admits his guilt but pled that his brother made him do it.
For jurors who believe execution should be reserved for the worst criminals, the lawyers laid out a clear path to conclude Dzhokhar wasn’t even the worst of the Tsarnaevs.
Tsarnaev was 19 at the time of the bombing; he was apparently a heavy drug user; he had no prior criminal record. By themselves, none of these would seem like a particularly good reason to spare him, but taken as a whole, and alongside evidence of his brother’s dominant role, they should plant seeds of doubt.
So the defense from the Boston Globe is that he was young and stoned and that his brother was worse then he was?
Did he not know murdering children was wrong? Did he not understand the building bombs to harm people was a crime?
Sorry but if there is ever a case for the death penalty, this is it.