After a jury in Boston delivered its guilty verdict in the Boston Marathon bombing trial, debate among columnists began over whether or not the jury would impose the stiffest punishment of all: the death penalty.

Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Shouldn’t Get Death Penalty

The Editorial Board – The Los Angeles Times

It was almost inevitable that the jury in the Boston Marathon bombing trial would reach the verdict it did. There was little doubt that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was guilty of the heinous, despicable crimes for which he was charged; even his lawyer acknowledged his role. Two years ago Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, packed two pressure cookers with explosives, nails, metal shards and BBs. Then they detonated the bombs within seconds of each other near the race’s crowded finish line. The explosions killed three people and wounded 264 others, many of whom lost limbs or suffered other horrific, life-altering injuries.

It was the worst terrorist act in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and it’s understandable that few Americans feel much pity for the young man in the dock. But early next week, when the same seven-woman, five-man jury that convicted Tsarnaev on Wednesday begins deliberating the young man’s fate, the decision-making will become even more difficult. Under federal law, Tsarnaev is eligible for the death penalty on 17 of the 30 crimes of which he was convicted. At the outset of the trial, the jurors all promised the judge that they would be able to sentence Tsarnaev to death if the evidence, and the crimes, warranted it.

Tsarnaev’s legal team will no doubt offer arguments for mitigation. He was only 19 when the bombings occurred. He has no prior criminal record. He was under the influence of his older brother. But although those things may all be true, the real reason to spare Tsarnaev’s life is that no crime warrants the death penalty. The jury should reject capital punishment and sentence Tsarnaev to life in prison without possibility of parole because that is how a mature society acts. Not out of vengeance. Not out of passion. Killing another human being is immoral, whether by bomb or by lethal injection.

For the city of Boston, the trial has reopened painful wounds of the attack nearly two years ago as jurors prepare to weigh Tsarnaev’s sentence.

After the Tsarnaev verdict, the real drama begins

Harvey Silverglate – The Boston Globe

The upcoming sentencing phase of the Boston Marathon bombing trial will be much like the Marathon itself: long, grueling, and immensely consequential. It did not take much ability to predict that the jury would convict Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of various charges growing out of the bombing. Thus the real drama will be in the jury’s forthcoming decision as to whether to sentence the defendant to life in prison or death…

The sentencing phase will be much more of a challenge to the defense than to the prosecution team. For one thing, the jury selection procedure implemented by Judge George O’Toole eliminated any citizens who harbor conscientious objections to the death penalty in all circumstances …

A so-called “death-qualified jury” does not necessarily vote for the death penalty, of course, but experienced trial lawyers and careful observers of the system realize that such a jury may well be not only willing and able, but also somewhat inclined to vote for execution. Being willing to impose the death penalty is the first logical step to voting to impose it, so the dice are somewhat loaded toward the prosecutors’ side. Tsarnaev’s lawyers have a steep uphill climb.