US government arguing for A death sentence while arguing against THE death sentence; does US Supreme Court Justice Barrett have a point?

Avatar of The Politicus
The Politicus
Oct 14, 2021 03:07 AM 0 Answers
Member Since Sep 2018
Subscribed Subscribe Not subscribe

ABC News's Justices divide sharply on reinstating Boston Marathon bomber death sentence begins:

Reciting the gruesome details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and its violent aftermath, an attorney for the Biden administration on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the death sentence for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, arguing that a federal appeals court overstepped its authority in tossing out a jury's unanimous decision to impose capital punishment for the heinous crime.

and later says:

Midway through the government's argument for reinstating Tsarnaev's execution, Justice Amy Coney Barrett called attention to one of the overarching contradictions in the case: the government is arguing for a death sentence while it has stopped carrying them out.

"I'm wondering what the government's end game is here?" Barrett asked of Feigin. "The government has declared a moratorium on executions, but you're here defending his death sentences. And if you win, presumably, that means that he is relegated to living under the threat of a death sentence that the government doesn't plan to carry out. So I'm just having trouble following the point."

This would not be the first time a politician or a political administration talks out of both sides of its mouth at the same time, if that's what's happening here.

Question: Is the Biden administration's pursuit of a death sentence for one individual after also placing a moratorium on federal executions patently contradictory? Does each reduce the credibility of the other? Or is there a consistent position compatible with both?

0 Subscribers
Submit Answer
Please login to submit answer.
0 Answers
Sort By:

  • October 14, 2021