Tsarnaev Gets What He Gave

The Tsarnaev jury which sat through out all the evidence of his guilt and another trial concerning his appropriate penalty has come to the right decision that he deserves to die for his criminal actions. This jury which remained loyal to its oath to make a decision based on the evidence in the court and not the propaganda put out in the pro-life media (in the case of terrorists) or the pusillanimous positions of our Massachusetts politicians who represent us in Washington, DC.

Never has the chasm in thinking between the man in the street and those who represent them; or between the average Jack and Jill and the media pundits been shown as it has in this case. The loud and continuous braying of the bleeding hearts in the media that his life be spared based upon tons of specious reasoning was totally rejected and repudiated by these jurors.

This jury knew the act of terrorism was long planned; it saw how the defendant put the backpack behind a young innocent kid knowing he was about to destroy his life and that of others and callously walk away . What other punishment would have been appropriate other than to give him what he wanted to give to others.

This is not a case where the jury may have convicted the wrong man: he admitted he did it and showed how he felt about it with his defiance. This is not a case that called for mercy because the defendant sat stoically throughout the trial as evidence of his murders and witnesses to his depravity with missing limbs paraded in to tell of the hell he put them through

I wrote that the death penalty was necessary in this case. We had to show we are a serious people who are not afraid to return blow for blow, like blow for like blow.

Congratulations to this group of ordinary Americans who rose to the challenge and made the hard but correct decision  Congratulations to the federal prosecutors who did not waiver in doing their job and to their boss Carmen Ortiz who stopped listening to the media and began following her instincts.

It will take time for his execution to be carried out. Each day leading up to it the defendant can ponder that his life is going to be cut short like the lives of those he murdered.  That is the appropriate punishment for him.



7 thoughts on “Tsarnaev Gets What He Gave

  1. I favored a verdict of life without parole, but it’s not hard to see why jury acted as it did. Opponents of the death penalty were excluded from the jury, which explains why there appeared to be a disconnect between the verdict and popular opposition to the death penalty in the greater Boston area. There were other factors as well. The prosecution’s case was clear and focused, while the defense seemed to be all over map. But the most important factor was Tsarnaev himself. Only a convincing — or at least plausible — expression of sorrow could have saved him. But we didn’t get one. The best the defense could do was a nun who told us second-hand that Tsarnaev was contrite. I didn’t believe Tsarnaev was sorry at all. And if you were a juror who believed that Tsarnaev was guilty of this terrible crime, and glad of it, there really was no choice but to vote for death.

    1. Bob:

      You’re getting ahead of yourself. I do connect the Tsarnaev case with that of Martorano in my next post.

  2. Mr. MATT , the system worked this time and for that I am grateful . Justice has been served . Wonder where MARGERY EAGAN and her ilk will be drowning their sorrows tonight …..

    1. Gus:

      Don’t worry about Eagan and her ilk.them. They’re not going to give up. They all have the John Brown complex where they are determined they are right and morally superior to the rest of us who walk wound in darkness.
      They will now try to work on the judges who will hear the appeal or some future soft-hearted attorney general. An indication of where they are going is shown by the first line in an article in the New York Times yesterday which stated: “To many Bostonians, the death sentence given to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev felt like a blot on the city’s collective consciousness.” You see, the media wants to put out the message that the people in the area feel bad about the verdict and believe the jury was some kind of aberration that perhaps acted in a worse manner than Dzhokhar’s did. One does get tired of its nonsense.

  3. And how many trips to the courts before he shuffles off this mortal coil? We’ll be through Hillary’s second term, and perhaps even beyond her successor’s second term, by that time.

    But that may give him time to do whatever there is similar to Nine First Fridays in his religion. I’m sure we’ll be reading of his repentance in the Boston Globe Magazine on many a future Sunday.

    1. Henry:

      It should not take that long. There is no issue over his guilt. His only hope is that Hillary appoints the new Supreme Court Justices who will rule that in the case of terrorism the death penalty is not warranted; or just generally outlaw that penalty; or even find it is unlawful to try a home grown terrorist under the age of 25 (remember Nancy Gertner said the brain is not fully mature until that time).

      You are absolutely right that we will be inundated with editorials and columnists telling us what a good boy Dzhokhar has become and just about yearly the Globe Sunday Magazine will have a full blown article on how he has seen the light. I noted how the NY Times has an article saying that many think the jury’s verdict that he be fried is a blot on the city’s “collective consciousness.” (They actually believe that stuff.) Maybe Cardinal O’Malley can rent out Fenway Park and give us all general absolution to ease our suffering.
      Good comment – I now see the worst thing about finding he should be put to death will be the endless articles extolling his reformation.

Comments are closed.