CJ 3200 MOD 5 BELL
Case Study Module 5
1. Aggravating and mitigating factors
Mitigating factors are considered whenever a death sentence is being imposed. Discussed below are mitigating and aggravating factors in the case of The Marathon Bombing and Beyond.
The defense lawyers agreed that the defendant actively participated in the attack, but they maintained that the defendant was following orders from his elder brother who was leading the attack. The defendant was said to have been young and immature at the time. As such the defendant had no prior history of any criminal conduct.
The defendant was radicalized by teachings of Islamic extremists that were available online. The teachings radicalized the defendants into carrying out the attack in order to avenge the death of Muslims according to the extremists. The defendant was under duress from the online extremists.
The defense lawyers cited that, Tamerlan had a huge influence on the defendant and was hugely accountable for the crimes. This indicates that the defendant participation in the crime as minor participation.
The defendant committed the said crimes together with his brother. This showed that the two were equally culpable. The jury found the defendant guilty and was sentenced to death.
The defendant showed no remorse throughout the case and only expressed his emotions once. Showing remorse would have been a mitigating factor but the defendant showed his emotions just once.
2. Discuss the meaning and significance of the term death qualified jury.
Death-qualified jury, in law, refers to a trial panel that is deemed fit to decide criminal cases that involve death penalty as punishment. This trial jury has jurors that are; supportive of the capital punishment and others who are opposed to imposing capital punishment on all criminal cases. Many countries have abolished capital punishment thus eliminating the death qualification of a juries.
3. Does research by Steinberg, cited in earlier chapters, have any relevance to this case?
Steinberg, in his research argues that adults and juveniles should be held under different standards of criminal responsibility as the decision making is diminished in adolescents (Icenogle, et al, 2019). Thus, the defense lawyers described the defendant as young and immature when he committed the crime. According to the research, the two brothers should have been held under different standards of criminal responsibility. The defendant was an adolescent whose character was still transitioning and might be unable to resist persistent influence.
What about research on emerging adulthood, cited in box 6-1?
Law breakers below the age of 18 are excluded from the capital punishment. During adolescence, a lot of developments take place such as character forming and often includes dangerous risk taking and criminal offenses which are eliminated as one grows old. The defendant would not have faced the death penalty if he had been two years younger when he committed the crime. Most decisions made during adolescence are less future aligned and the possibility of considering the consequences of their actions is less. Research shoes that at adolescence the brain has not yet acquired adult maturity.
References
Icenogle, G., Steinberg, L., Duell, N., Chein, J., Chang, L., Chaudhary, N., ... & Oburu, P. (2019). Adolescents’ cognitive capacity reaches adult levels prior to their psychosocial maturity: Evidence for a “maturity gap” in a multinational, cross-sectional sample. Law and human behavior, 43(1), 69.