Week two of jury selection for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and I’m still wrestling with why so many believe his trial will bring closure to the marathon bombing tragedy. Don’t misunderstand-- Tsarnaev must stand trial for the crimes for which he is accused.
I’ve said before that I think a change of location would have been a better environment for a fair trial. My comments were interpreted by some to mean that I thought the 21-year-old bomber was innocent. No, what I meant and mean is I wanted a trial that is scrupulously conducted so that we can feel satisfied the system succeeded no matter the verdict. But, I don’t know how that works when an entire community has been impacted. As national security expert Juliette Kayyem put it, “We were all under lock down, all impacted by what he did.”
That impact has been documented in a defense study that revealed a significantly high number of Bostonians personally affected by the bombing, as well as many who presume Tsarnaev is guilty.
Still, Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys were unable to persuade the judge to move the trial. But I wonder – given what we know about how many have been tainted by the experience of the bombing, can anybody in that near two thousand-member jury pool approach the case without a foregone conclusion in mind? I’d be surprised.
It’s not that I don’t think that the sixteen who are eventually selected from the pool won’t try to put aside their biases as they review the facts of the case. And even in Massachusetts, which ended the death penalty more than twenty years ago, and has not put anyone to death since 1947, I believe some could vote for the death penalty if they had to. I’ve been struck by the number of recent callers to both Boston Public Radio and The Takeaway who confirmed that –in this case-- civic responsibility would trump their personal beliefs.
Many opposed to the death penalty actually see it as an easy way out; they see life in prison as a worse punishment. For me, it’s not about the severity of the punishment. I could not vote for the death penalty because I don’t believe in state sponsored killing. However, it’s long worried me that I’m also the person in the movie theater screaming for the head of the fictional terrorist, villain, or criminal. I always thought it suggested that deep down I was okay with putting some people to death. Now as I ponder the reality of the Tsarnaev trial, I think that impulse is a reflection of my immediate relief that the bad guy is gone, and justice has been served. It’s exactly what those who want closure from this trial want to feel.
But this is real life; even though I wish it could be that simple. I wish that the estimated three month trial would finally fill in some missing details, answer some long held questions, and bring some indication from Tsarnaev that he sees— really sees— the victims in front of him. But, if –as I fear--that doesn’t happen, I wish that those who are seeking emotional closure will somehow be able to leave their heartbreak and anger behind in the courtroom.
Callie Crossley is the host of Under the Radar with Callie Crossley.
