Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyatlast
"Denise and Bill Richard, mother and father of Martin, 8, said in a letter published in a Boston newspaper that while they do not speak for all the victims of the attacks they would prefer that Tsarnaev be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and waive of all of his appeals.
"We understand all too well the heinousness and brutality of the crimes committed. We were there. We lived it. The defendant murdered our 8-year-old son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul.
We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives. We hope our two remaining children do not have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring," said the Richards in the letter. When I first read this statement by innocent little Martin's parents a few weeks ago, I remember that news outlet's analysts of death penalty appeals in this country reported that the average minimum years of death penalty appeals processes going on is 16 years.
I think allowing AND PAYING FOR 16+ years of lawyering, and taxpayers paying for the likely law-school education/degree of the convict in prison, makes a mockery of all that the justice system and dedicated jurors have done and determined for disposition of the case.
Enough is enough.
Family of Martin Richard: We're against the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev | masslive.com |
The cost of the trials in dollars is a bit higher for a death penalty case, but the cost of incarceration for 50+ years would be more.
In one way, I respect our system and realize that everyone deserves justice, but on the other hand, some case are so obvious that the appeals system really should be limited.
The fact that appeals are automatic when someone pleads guilty to first degree murder is, to me, absurd. The fact that when the facts of a trial like this are obvious that appeals are allowed is absurd. Appeals should only be allowed if there was some sort of problem with the trial.