If Biden Is Serious About Ending the Death Penalty, He Should Start Commuting Sentences
A Supreme Court ruling restoring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s capital sentence and a congressional logjam makes it clear that only he can keep his campaign promise.

President Joe Biden promised he would end the federal death penalty during his campaign. Last Friday, the Supreme Court sent him a message: They're not going to do it for him.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court restored the federal death penalty sentence against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for his role in assisting his brother, Tamerlan, in orchestrating the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013.
Tsarnaev had been sentenced to death by a jury, but in 2020 the U.S. Court of Appeals First Circuit threw out the capital sentence. The judges determined that the judge overseeing sentencing erred by not adequately screening the jurors for how much media they had consumed about Tsarnaev and whether they had already developed an opinion about him. In addition, Tsarnaev had tried to convince the jury to spare him by pointing the finger to his brother (who died when the two of them were fighting and attempting to flee from police) as the mastermind. The judge allowed the defense but did not allow the introduction of evidence that showed Tamerlan may have previously been involved in a triple homicide in Waltham, Massachusetts. The Court of Appeals ruled the judge abused its discretion here and ordered a new sentencing trial.
At the same time that Tsarnaev's lawyers were going through the lengthy process of appealing his sentence, Biden was campaigning for the presidency. As part of his criminal justice reform platform (and part of the 2020 Democratic Party's platform), he promised to support the elimination of the federal death sentence.
Then Biden won, and remarkably, his Department of Justice turned to the Supreme Court to defend the death penalty sentence for Tsarnaev and lobbied for it to be restored. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled accordingly in a pretty clear ideological split, with only Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting.
To be clear, the appeals court had only ruled that a new sentencing trial needed to take place. Tsarnaev was still considered guilty and is most certainly never going to be a free man ever again. The majority of Supreme Court justices, though, ruled that the judge did not abuse discretion and overruled the appeals court. Justice Clarence Thomas concluded in the majority decision: "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed heinous crimes. The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury. He received one."
Over the past few years, Breyer and Sotomayor have been raising alarm bells about how executions are being carried out and attempting to urge the Supreme Court to take on more of defendants' appeals, generally with little luck. It's somewhat telling of the Supreme Court's current attitude toward the death penalty that the court did take on an appeal from the federal government for the purpose of restoring a death sentence.
This is far from a precedent-setting verdict. It's fundamentally about the extent of a court's discretion and supervisory oversight. It was never really going to be about the legitimacy of the death penalty (though Breyer does mention in his dissent that the issues in this case demonstrate "the problems inherent in a system that allows for the imposition of the death penalty").
It does, then, show that the Supreme Court is not going to reconsider whether the death penalty is constitutional. Even though Kagan signed on the dissent, she made sure to note that she excluded herself from Breyer's lament about the overall application of the death penalty.
And so it is up to Congress and President Biden to bring about an end to the federal death penalty if that's what they choose to do. The Department of Justice under Biden has implemented a moratorium on executions, but it's a self-imposed one that they can just as easily lift, and it's difficult to treat seriously given that the same Department of Justice under the same administration fought to restore Tsarnaev's death sentence.
As for Congress, who could via legislation eliminate the use of the death penalty, there's a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) that has gone nowhere. It has 78 co-sponsors, only one of which is a Republican (Rep. Peter Meijer of Michigan). The Senate version of the bill is also going nowhere and has 19 co-sponsors, all Democrats. Given the partisan logjam of the Senate, it seems very unlikely that the federal death penalty will be eliminated legislatively any time in the near future.
If Biden is actually committed to his campaign promise, he can commute the sentences of each of the 44 people currently on federal death row to life in prison. But as C.J. Ciaramella noted after Biden's State of the Union address last week, the president has done little to keep any of his campaign promises on criminal justice reform. The way things stand now, if Biden isn't even willing to consider commuting these sentences, it's safe to say that he is satisfied to just make sure they aren't executed on his watch.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This will have to wait.
Basement Bunker Biden is too busy sending millions to Russia, and setting things up to send millions to Iran and Venezuela.
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA02 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
For more detail …. http://rb.gy/u603ti
I dare Biden to commute this cowards sentence. Yes please, be soft on coward terrorists that blow up people. The GOP could run on this alone and beat Biden in next election.
Which is of course the only reason he won't do it. By all means, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a shining example of a case that fully justifies the death penalty, but if Biden is going to rail against the death penalty on on the campaign trail, and the then not stop it where he has the undisputed unilateral authority to do so, well, that makes him a rather hypocritical politician. But I repeat myself
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would make for the perfect test case. It's easy to commute a sentence for someone who has been on death row for decades and appears to have some level of reform. It's much harder for someone who did so much damage, and not that long ago. That would make it all that more courageous and principled of a move. We can finally stop treating barbarians like we are barbarians.
Also, side note. Tsarnaev is 28. If he were to live to 78, that's 50 years in prison, plus time already served. Half a century behind bars is an incredibly severe sentence.
There are a number of arguments against the death penalty that I find persuasive. None of them apply here though.
This is an open and shut case. There is no issue of fact in dispute, which completely eliminates the possibility of juror error or bias. If cases like these were expedited, execution would be much cheaper in the long-run than imprisonment. If Tsarnaev was sentenced to 50 years, he would be a burden to state his entire life. He would be far too old to make any meaningful economic contributions by the time he was released and would consequently require continued government assistance on the outside. Plus, he would be eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare, despite not contributing financially to either program at any point in his life.
Furthermore, while you may think that executing Tsarnaev is "barbaric", I would guess that most Americans do not share your view. Executing Tsarnaev would, therefore, reflect the will of the American people and increase public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Buddy can fry.
Biden has been a massive hypocrite during his entire career.
there is no chance Biden is running in the next presidential election...zero
Okay. If Biden did this then the GOP could run on this alone and beat Kamala Harris in the next election.
That's what gets me. People talked about how horrible it was that Trump's DOJ was conducting executions, but those prisoners had been on death row since the Bush era, and I think at least one had been on Death Row since Clinton was president.
Obama had 8 years to actually commute their sentences, but he didn't. He just kept them in limbo. Not executing anyone, but not enacting his authority to actually stop it. It was just meaningless half-measures so that he wouldn't get flack from either side
Never underestimate the ability of the Republicans to royally fuck up a perfect situation.
The only thing that Biden is serious about is Ovaltine.
Applesauce, General; don't forget applesauce.
with cinnamon!
And pudding. Lots and lots of pudding.
Well, also fondling children
Ice cream and a fresh diaper.
All he did was plant a bomb that killed people, it's not like he put his feet on Pelosis desk
are *you* serious about Brandon being serious?
Chtst.
I realize they still need to advocate for pro-liberty issues, but can they stop thinking Biden gives a shit about any of them?
Just to be clear, this is the specific promise he made:
"...Biden will work to pass legislation to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level, and incentivize states to follow the federal government’s example."
https://joebiden.com/justice/
He deliberately *avoided* any promise to use his clemency power, presumably because it would be too easy to call him on it when he broke such a promise.
No, all he said he'd do is send an anti-death-penalty bill to Congress and if they pass it (which would be a great surprise and disappointment to him) to (reluctantly) sign the bill.
To put it another way, he doesn't want to commit himself to doing anything which might actually end the death penalty.
As for the Boston bomber guy, I hope they execute him.
Reason loves the Imperial Presidency when they hope they can get something they want.
I didn't wish to suggest there was anything imperial about changing a death sentence to life, just that Biden avoided promising to do so because it would be too easy to hold him accountable.
I agree, the clemency power is one of the few powers specifically enumerated to the president, nothing imperial about using it
I have a better idea.
If POTUS Biden were serious about debt reduction, he would auction the right to flip the switch on Old Sparky when they stick this guys ass in the chair.
(I know, I know...the needle. You can still auction off 'push the button')
That’s not a half-bad idea, except given how many drug companies are pushing back on using their drugs for lethal injection, more states that have capital punishment should look at firing squads or hanging as the method of execution. You could have a raffle or auction to be in the firing squad or to pull the lever and raise enough to defray the costs of the death penalty.
Of course he's not serious. Not any more than he was about healing the country and uniting people or fixing covid.
Where does one get the idea that only the mastermind's of a mass murder get full punishment? He is not denying his part in the crime, just that somehow he had less agency than his brother, and the anti death penalty brigade will latch on to any lame excuse to overturn a capital sentence.
Well, of course they do. Just like the anti-abortion brigade will latch onto any lame excuse to make abortion less convenient or more restricted. If you think something is immoral and equivalent to murder, anything you can do to stop it is good, no?
Maybe, but it does not make it any better an argument.
No, but you try whatever you can when appealing a conviction, don't you?
You don,'t have to associate with a defense lawyer's absurd Hail Mary.
Just like the anti-abortion brigade will latch onto any lame excuse to make abortion less convenient or more restricted.
Was it really the anti-abortion brigade that caused the round up of Pearl Gosnell and the others at the clinic?
Given S230, we seem to have real problem with people directly involved in an act and preemptively and unilaterally declaring everyone else involved in an act innocent. Like crime only happens one perp, and only one perp, at a time.
I don't care to discuss that or abortion in general. Just thinking of another political cause where people see their position as so morally imperative that they are willing to do whatever might be effective.
In all fairness, latching on to any and every lame excuse hoping that something sticks is both SOP and the only real way to fight a death penalty case post-conviction
It just makes that movement appear foolish and extremist. A bad argument is still a bad argument.
Unless Dzhokhar was so mentally incompetent as to be unable to form an evil intent, he is partly responsible for the crimes. If I were on the jury for a single murder, I might consider whether it mattered that the guy on trial wasn't the mastermind. But in this case, even a small part of the responsibility for the crimes is more than enough to justify execution.
I'm sure commuting Tsarnaev's sentence would send Biden's polling data rocketing into the stratosphere.
And that's why it never happens.
It's not like optics ever play a role in politics
Exactly...Sir Isaac Newton served in Parliament, for example.
He played bass before Bootsie joined the group.
"commuting Tsarnaev's sentence would send Biden's polling data rocketing into the stratosphere [among terrorists]."
Can't wait to see your pro-Chauvin piece about how he couldn't get a fair trial because of the publicity and violence ginned up around his case by marxist activists and media including you and the rest of the Reason crew. Or does your sympathy for fair trials only extend to anti-American Muslim extremist mass murderers?
Do him a favor and throw yourself off a tall building in solidarity with the cause.
Unfortunately for Mr. Chauvin and Mr. Tsarnaev, when one commits a notorious crime of national significance, it does tend to make it difficult to find jurors who haven't heard of the case. But would you really want to be tried in front of 12 people who don't read the news?
I'd settle for people living in a city without an active protest/riot before the trial, and at a bare minimum, jurors who haven't actively attended protests/riots before or during the trial. Preferably also jurors who haven't been making public statements declaring the guilt/innocence of the defendent before the trial.
That's a fair point and one that people who are concerned about the bias of jurors in other cases should be taking note of. One of the jurors in the Chauvin trial attended a rally where Floyd's family were the keynote speakers while he was wearing a T-shirt that read "Keep your knees off our necks." He also lied about it during voir dire where he would have been excluded for cause. That should have been grounds for a mistrial when it came out after the verdict.
I don't have much sympathy for Chauvin but if a judge is willing to allow someone so obviously prejudiced against a defendant on a jury and to let them get away with lying about it during the jury selection process, that opens the door for the same thing (or worse) to happen in other cases. Upholding the right to due process including an impartial jurty is far too important even if it means a guilty person might get off (or the state has to try him again).
What's in it for Biden? How does he get his 10%?
I mean, really, you had a headline with the phrase 'If Biden is serious about ...'
“If Biden is serious.”
That’s some funny shit right there.
Ending the death penalty is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a while. We need to massively expand it's use. I'm personally a proponent of execution as the one and only sentence for any violent of property crime. Anybody formerly convicted of committing a violent or property crime should also be executed, regardless if they are currently incarcerated or have since gotten out. And there is no moral dilemma here whatsoever, these people have proven they have no problem violating the natural rights of others, so why should their natural rights be respected (including the right to life).
From a practical point of view, as we're seeing in San Francisco and elsewhere, soft on crime policies cause massive increases in crime. So wouldn't it stand to reason extremely harsh on crime sentences (such as the death penalty) will lower crime dramatically? It will certainly make potential criminals think twice before actually committing crimes. And society can rest assured anybody caught and convicted will never commit a crime again, because they'll be dead. Unlike life in jail, it doesn't cost taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money for no return whatsoever. As scumbag George Floyd and many other violent criminals have proven time and time again, non life incarceration doesn't work either as correction and they'll be right back to violent crime the moment they are out. So incarceration whether temporary or permanent is pointless while execution permanently solves the problem on an individual criminal basis and is a massive deterrent for potential criminals.
Jeffy?
"Ending the death penalty is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a while. We need to massively expand it's use. I'm personally a proponent of execution as the one and only sentence for any violent of property crime..."
We got us a proponent of government power, almost as imbecilic as this pile of lefty shit:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, asshole. make your family proud!
If you're an anarchist and don't believe the government should exist at all, that's one perspective with some merit, although naive. But if you're a libertarian or someone who believes in some (but limited) government, isn't enforcement of property rights and physical aggression prohibition the whole point of why the government should exist? I'm not proposing new rules here to limit individual freedom. I'm proposing taking our already existent (but extremely lax) punishment and making them very harsh against those who have proven they have no respect for the property rights or natural rights of others. These policies will not affect anybody who isn't a thief, rapist or murderer in the slightest (except lowering their odds of getting robbed, raped or killed significantly). How does that make me in favor of more government power?
We need to massively expand it's use.
Grammatical errors should be a capital offense. And most people who serve time aren't career criminals.
Yes, let's make jokes about my grammar instead of why my position makes no sense and equate a grammar error with theft or rape. Most people who serve time for violent or property crime are single time offenders and learn their lesson? I'm not talking about a guy who got caught smoking something, doing a prostitute or speeding 30 mph over the limit in a school zone. These are people who have proven they can't be trusted to live in civil society and don't respect the natural rights of others. How in the hell is this so controversial?
If one demonstrates oneself fundamentally insensitive to the rights of others and the widespread use of deadly force as this idiot did, one is an anti-Libertarian terrorist.
The world simply does not need people like this, and certainly does not need to spend ~$50K/year supporting them the rest of their useless lives. It is simply illogical to waste resources supporting them. "Reason" should understand this reason.
They're rebranding, they're gonna rename the magazine "Emote" next month.
The Boston Bomber is not exactly a sympathetic figure, if you're trying to get people to give up the death penalty.
Even the great Gerry Spence, one of OJ's lawyers, said he wouldn't defend bombers. (Or bankers.)
Correct; the asshole in question is not the best choice to advance the argument.
BUT:
If you are serious regarding the argument, you direct your response to the opposition's strongest counter argument:
That asshole should not be murdered by the state since it justifies others not so obvious being so treated.
Because, of course, no sane and honest person can possibly claim it isn't constitutional. The text and history of the Constitution make it utterly clear that the application of the death penalty is allowed with "due process of law" -- indeed, a lot less "due process of law" than the current Supreme Court-invented rigamarole.
You want to ban the death penalty? Pass a constitutional amendment.
I oppose the death penalty; one death imposed by the state is too high a price to pay for others left living.
Which is irrelevant to droolin' Joe's handlers claiming a position and then ignoring the claim
It's close to turd or Misek lying one day and forgetting they did so a say later; stupid piles of shit tend to do so.
So what is your point exactly? That nobody deserves to be killed as punishment no matter what tragedies they've inflicted on others? That people deserve a second chance? That the state shouldn't be the one doing the execution?
Let's do a thought experiment. If out in the sticks a guy rapes a young girl. Her father finds out about it and takes matters into his hands, finds the rapist, beats him to death and buries him in a hole in the desert. Are you ok with that? And if not, why not? I personally think that's justice served and is clearly a benefit for the rest of society.
It's not the president's job to "end the death penalty"; doing so through commutation would be an abuse of his powers.
None of this would be necessary if the police had just let the little murdering fuckstick bleed out.
Just fire up Sparky and be done with it. I believe it was Scalia who said that the public has a right to seeing the law done. Endless appeals make a mockery of the law. If the government won't uphold the law, why in hell should the citizens?
If you've read any British crime literature, you know that executions were carried out the next week after the verdict. There was an appeal to the Home Secretary, and that was it.If you don't like that, the answer is not an endless series of appeals until the perp dies of old age. The court has ruled - now snuff him.
"If Biden was serious about" is all you had to say. Unless the next two words are ice cream, you can conclude he's not.
Biden is not serious, cognizant, or in charge of his own policy.