RSS

Greasing the rails to death row

Lawyers defending Sayfullo Saipov (photo, left) accuse federal prosecutors of trying to railroad him onto death row.

Saipov is an Islamic State sympathizer and domestic terrorist who killed 8 people and injured 18 others by driving a rented truck into a crowd of people on a Manhattan bike path.

His lawyers argue prosecutors are seeking “eye for eye” justice, and complained the “victim-impact evidence has been laden with emotional testimony, improper references to and characterizations of Mr. Saipov and his crime, and appeals to jurors’ emotions and sympathy for the victims and their plight.”

By questioning the prosecutors’ courtroom tactics, they’re just doing their job. Every defendant is entitled to legal representation, and a defemse lawyer is expected to do everything possible to save the life of a client facing execution. Worth noting, many Americans oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.

In American courts, expressing hatred and talking about “revenge” is a no-no; so victims and their relatives have been conditioned to couch their anger in the language of “seeking justice.” That, of course, is a euphemism for wanting to get even.

We could have a discussion here about whether there’s something wrong with a normal human reaction to being brutalized. Hating a criminal who murdered your loved one doesn’t make you a psychiatric case. If you don’t feel that way, you may be suffering from “Stockholm syndrome.”

But to preserve rule of law, which civilized societies utilize to displace revenge (aka “law of the jungle”) in order to maintain social control, the system demands that prosecutors and victims seek “justice” instead of revenge. Therefore, prosecutors have to be careful about how they go about seeking a death sentence, if they want it to survive the inevitable appeals.

In Saipov’s case, on Monday, February 20, 2023, “prosecutors filed a response to the defense’s request for a mistrial, saying … emotional testimony by and about victims ‘does not approach, much less cross, the bounds of the law,’” ABC News reported here.

If judges are to allow victim testimony, and I can’t imagine the American public tolerating otherwise, no judge can ask or expect victims to describe what was done to them emotionlessly. Victims are human, and most people aren’t endowed with that kind of emotional strength.

In this case, prosecutors are trying to stay within the guidelines of a fair trial. “The contested testimony did not offer opinions or characterizations of the crime, did not comment on the appropriate sentence, and did not — by any means — otherwise render the trial fundamentally unfair,” they argued. They didn’t ask their witnesses what should happen to the defendant.

One of those witnesses, a man whose wife was killed in Saipov’s attack, simply said his children “will never have their mother, never have the most important person in their life, never. And, as for me, my life is ruined.” Saipov’s defense lawyers complained this testimony “transcended a mere description of pain and loss and … urged jurors to end Mr. Saipov’s life because he had ended Ms. Decadt’s [life] and ‘ruined’ the lives of her husband and children.”

They also complained that Ms. Decadt’s mother “wept and sobbed through most of her testimony, in visible fits of anger at times.” Yeah well, so what? What else would you expect?

The judge is doing his best to give Saipov a fair trial. He “repeatedly urged witnesses to request a break if they believed they were about to be too emotional, and he has made rulings to disallow some audio or video recordings that he concluded might be unfairly prejudicial.” He’ll also allow Saipov’s lawyers to present mitigating evidence (this is a fancy term for letting him try to blame his actions on his parents, teachers, and/or community.)

I’m a strong believer in rule of law, due process and fair trial, and allowing even the worst criminals to ask for mercy. Executing someone is messy. Our criminal justice system makes mistakes; dozens of death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence. We’ve got to be more careful about that.

But there’s no doubt Saipov is guilty; he was apprehended at the scene (after being shot by a cop), waived his Miranda rights and confessed, and explained his motive (revenge for Muslims killed by U.S. troops in Iraq). He bears a lot of similarity to the Boston Marathon bombers (the survivor of whom was sentenced to death).

In federal courts, it takes 12 jurors to impose a death sentence, and their vote must be unanimous, otherwise the defendant gets life. If 12 ordinary Americans from various walks of life all agree this terrorist should be executed, who am I to question their verdict? If letting the victims tell their stories greases the rails to Saipov getting what he deserves, so be it.

Update (3/13/23): The jurors couldn’t agree so Saipov, 35, “is destined to spend the rest of his days at ADX Florence in Colorado, America’s highest security prison,” where inmates live in concrete boxes and aren’t allowed to see grass, trees, or sky (story here).

Return to The-Ave.US Home Page


Comments are closed.