Death penalty must be serious option in Boston bombing trial

Twenty months ago, shock and horror shook the nation at the ghastly sights and sounds of bombs exploding near the finish line of the quintessentially American Boston Marathon. In the aftermath, three people lay dead, 16 had arms and legs ripped off, and more than 250 others suffered injuries.

Twenty months later, the wheels of justice at last are moving into high gear as the trial, United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has begun this week in federal court in Boston, a mere blocks from the site of the despicable attack.

As more than 1,200 potential jurors begin the arduous interview process for the trial that is expected to mesmerize the nation for three months, it is difficult for some of us but important to all of us to remember that our Constitution dictates that Tsarnaev receive a fair trial. Toward that end, Tsarnaev’s defense team and federal prosecutors must work to guarantee a fair and impartial jury is impaneled to hear evidence about the crime and about the self-admitted participant in the horrific act of terror on April 15, 2013.

By extension, however, that also must mean that all 12 jurors and six alternates who are selected must be open to applying capital punishment because this case, with the blessing of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, is being tried as one in which execution will be a serious option — as it should be.

Given that the bombings rank as the largest terror attack on U.S. soil since 3,000 died in the airliner attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the death penalty must remain firmly on the table. We commend federal prosecutors who have aggressively and repeatedly resisted plea deals that would have let Tsarnaev live for decades in prison in exchange for guilty pleas to the 30 charges before him.

Clearly this is one case in which justice should not be bargained away on the auction block.

THE CASE AGAINST TSARNAEV

As prosecutors aptly point out, the case against Tsarnaev is compelling and the evidence against him straightforward and clear-cut. Surveillance video at the finish line directly links Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlin to the bombing. Tamerlin was shot by police and then run over and killed by Dzharkov days later in a confrontation with police. Dzhokhar also admitted to the bombing during questioning and explained it as retaliation for his anger over U.S. involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, authorities say in court documents.

As a result, Dzhokar’s defense team, led by Judy Clarke who stood up for the likes of Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski and Atlanta Olympic Park bomber Jared Loughner, likely will argue that Dzhokhar’s role in carrying out the mass destruction did not rise to the level of capital offenses. Jurors may well be faced with this question: Was brother Tamerlin the actual mastermind behind the plot and younger brother Dzhokar a mindless patsy in it?

That and other complex and soul-searching questions will likely play out in the federal courtroom in the weeks and months to come. In the end, however, responsible jurors must make a clear decision of guilt or innocence. Then, they must mete out punishment that proportionately fits the crime. In a crime of such horrendous, deadly and long-lasting consequences for the victims and their families, for Greater Boston residents and for all justice-loving Americans, a potential date for death for Tsarnaev must be firmly pronounced if the evidence so warrants.