cabiness42

At this point, I don't see a major downside to having a trial. I think people have watched too many legal dramas. The government has an obligation to not only these victims but future victims of other crimes because sentences to past similar crimes are used by judges in future sentencing procedures.

It's still early in the information-gathering process, but I don't see this being anything close to a month-long trial.

He could plead guilty to the crime and still argue in the sentencing phase that he doesn't deserve the death penalty. There's no logical reason why he would do it, but it's possible.

I understand that and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm saying that from a legal standpoint, the crime is so serious and the chance of acquittal is so low that the government has an obligation to seek the maximum penalty as currently defined, regardless of anybody's opinion of whether or not the maximum penalty is actually worse than a lesser penalty.

You can plead guilty without an agreement from the government to not seek the death penalty, in which case you move directly to the sentencing phase where you can choose whether or not to challenge the government's recommended sentence.

Based on what we know now, the probability of acquittal is so low that avoiding a trial is not incentive enough to take a deal. Now, if he cooperates and actually has valuable information, then that most certainly is incentive to cut a deal.

No every prosecutor who takes a plea deal is not negligent. Most cases have significant risk of not even getting a conviction, so plea deals are often the best route. What I mean from a legal standpoint is that the seriousness of the crime dictates the maximum penalty should be pursued and that the extremely low probability of acquittal dictates that the government should not move from the maximum penalty. It is the rare perfect storm where the government has to go for the max. If the maximum penalty were defined as life in prison would you be in favor of cutting a deal to give him less than the max?

Discretion is to be used when circumstances dictate that something less than the maximum penalty might be appropriate. As of right now, there are no circumstances that would dictate anything less than the maximum penalty.

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the legal profession and taking less than the maximum would be considered negligent. It's not an opinion on the death penalty--it's the reality of the law.

No, I'm really ambivalent about the death penalty and I'm not assuming that death is worse than life, but I understand that the current laws dictate death to be the maximum penalty and I understand from a legal standpoint why it's a terrible idea to accept anything less than the maximum penalty in this case.

When you become a Senator or President, you're more than welcome to argue that point, but the current Federal penal code lists execution as the maximum penalty and the government would be negligent to accept anything less than the maximum penalty in this case.

McVeigh isn't far more remembered than Kaczynski because he was executed. He's far more remembered because he killed over 150 people.

From the same story:

Was Timothy McVeigh more of a legend or a martyr because he was executed instead of rotting in prison? If you want to argue that the death penalty shouldn't exist, that's fine, but as long as it exists and it is considered the maximum penalty, that's what the government is obligated to pursue.

There is zero risk. They have him on tape placing one of the bombs, and they told the guy whose SUV they stole that they did it.

Unless he has information he can provide, he will not be offered any incentive to plea. Not for this level of terrorism.

Unless he has co-conspirators to give up, the Feds will not take a plea for anything less than the death penalty.

Killing the police officer may fall under state jurisdiction, but the Federal case will take precedence. He needs to pull out a map and learn where Terre Haute is. He's going to spend a lot of time there.

I don't know, but this is a Federal case so it doesn't matter.

Suspect in custody?!

Has anybody tried yelling "Marco"?

If they do get him alive, they've had plenty of time to have a trauma team ready to go at the nearest ER, with plenty of security on site and en route.

I hope these people get a new boat out of this.

Was said on the police scanner about two dozen times.

Address is 67 Franklin Street. You can see the boat trailer on Google Maps.