Death penalty for Marathon bomber: A reluctant “NO”

By Christopher B. Daly 

[Update, 2.4.14: A new study shows a surge in exonerations.]

I was opposed to the death penalty last April 14, the day before two immigrant brothers allegedly set off two homemade bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, causing death, grievous wounds, maiming,and mayhem. It was a despicable act, and it made me furious (not terrified, by the way).

In the heat of the moment, I wanted to find the perpetrators and punish them. I thought maybe they should be put into stocks on Boston Common and subject to whatever vengeance the public wanted to wreak. I think they would not have lasted long.

The Boston case – in which Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Thursday that federal prosecutors would seek the death penalty – illustrates exactly why we have laws. It strikes me that we make these laws as much for ourselves as we do for the criminals. When we are not furious, we have the chance to deliberate and to make wise laws that we agree to abide by even when all hell is breaking loose.

Before the Marathon Bombing, I thought the death penalty was a bad idea, for several reasons. It has become so rare in the United States — especially in Massachusetts, where the first execution took place in 1630 and the last execution took place in 1947 — that it could be seen as so “unusual” that it is unconstitutional on those grounds alone.

What I find even more compelling is the experience of the Innocence Project at the Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University and similar efforts carried out by journalists and journalism students. For lots of reasons — racism, inadequate public defenders, bogus confessions, and more — there are a horrifying number of people in America who have been placed on Death Row only to be exonerated before execution. (As of today, the Innocence Project tallies 312 cases of exoneration of prisoners slated to be put to death.) And of course, some innocent people have certainly been wrongfully killed by the state — which is to say, by all of us, through our laws and our taxes.

Ultimately, the problem is this: the death penalty is an irreversible climax to an imperfect system of justice. If we could be absolutely sure that our courts never made a mistake, then the death penalty might be worth considering. But the fact is that we know that our courts (and our cops and our prosecutors) sometime make mistakes. So, it is illogical and immoral to cap off such a system with a penalty that has no remedy.

For these reasons, as someone who was born in Boston and works here I am pleased that the Massachusetts Legislature has repeatedly refused to reinstate the death penalty. The last time the issue came up for a vote, in 2001, the Legislature rejected it by a vote of 94-60. Even in the aftermath of the Marathon Bombing, a large majority of Bostonians said they opposed capital punishment. And I am glad that in a time of peaceful deliberation, the people of Massachusetts were able to listen to the angels of our better nature and put in place restraints on ourselves.

In the Marathon bombing, the would-be terrorists used death as the instrument of their purpose. Let us not sink to their level.


Filed under Politics

3 responses to “Death penalty for Marathon bomber: A reluctant “NO”

  1. David

    “the Innocence Project tallies 312 cases of exoneration of prisoners slated to be put to death”

    “We know that our courts (and our cops and our prosecutors) sometime make mistakes.”

    So do journalists–only 18 of the 312 prisoners spent time on death row:; This is still not a number for anyone to take lightly.

    Fortunately, journalists’ errors do not send people to prison (although journalists can cost people their jobs, reputations and bank accounts without having to pay a nickel in damages, admit error or face a neutral party deciding whether they erred).

    Oddly, I have never read a comparison of whether the DNA evidence submitted by The Innocence Project meets the alleged standards one of its founders used to give OJ’s jurors an excuse to allow the murderer of 2 innocents to go free.


    • Only 9 were on death row at the time they were to be actually innocent.

      Thank you David


      • David

        Although it is not necessarily applicable here, in some cases, the term “exonerated” has been used too glibly.

        DNA evidence often does not prove innocence, but that the defendant should have been able to use it as part of his defense. In many cases, retrial is impossible because key witnesses have died, moved away, no longer have clear memories, etc, The defendant then goes free, but it is often far from clear they were actually innocent. For example, if a man is convicted of killing someone, but the DNA of another person is found on her body, it does not prove that the defendant did not kill the victim with some else, but it does rightly give the defendant the right to argue that the DNA belonged to the “actual killer.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s