With recent high-profile court cases unfolding in front of the country’s eyes, one topic seems to be the center of controversy and debate.  As a result of the recent Boston Marathon Bombings and the Colorado movie theater shooting, Americans are seriously considering the moral and constitutional repercussions of sentencing convicted criminals to death, regardless of the crime they committed.

Defendant James Holmes 25, the suspect of the Aurora movie theater shooting, sits in the middle of the controversial debate, as he is currently facing charges that, if found guilty, could result in a court ordered sentence to death.  Holmes is being charged with shooting and killing 12 people in addition to injuring 70 in the mass shooting that took place last July. Holmes recently made a statement in which he offered to plead guilty if the death penalty would not be the outcome of his case. The prosecution defiantly denied Holmes’s offer and demonstrated their determination to give Holmes the state’s highest possible form of punishment. This penalty has become the deciding factor in Holmes’s willingness to plead guilty.

Due to the prosecution not accepting Holmes’ offer, Holmes changed his defense and is now pleading not guilty by means of insanity. For Holmes to utilize the insanity defense he will have to provide the court with specific medical information that proves the logistics of his “psychiatric” state in addition to immediately undergoing a state examination. Holmes’s lawyers have been considering issuing an insanity plea for a while but hesitated to issue the defense because of the difference in death penalty laws compared to laws regarding insanity in Colorado. His lawyers have officially told the court that the defendant, James Holmes is in fact, mentally ill. The motivation and determination of the prosecution to reach a verdict of guilty and a subsequent sentence to death for Holmes has caused serious change in the pleads of Holmes and his defense team.

Also facing the death penalty is 19 year old Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, one of two suspects charged with planting bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 25, 2013 which resulted in over 200 injuries and 3 deaths.  Tsarnaev is being charged with one count of using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in the United States resulting in death and one count of destruction of property by means of an explosive device which resulted in death. If convicted of these charges, Tsarnaev could potentially be sentenced to death or a life of imprisonment. Although the state of Massachusetts does not permit the death penalty, it is something Tsarnaev could face if convicted by a federal court. Since he is not being charged as an enemy combatant, the death penalty is a verdict the court aims to reach.

In terms of the defense, lawyer, Judy Clarke, recently announced that she would be part of Tsarneav’s defense team.  Clarke specializes in cases that deal with the death penalty and has been able to prevent death sentences for numerous high profile criminals including Jared Loughner, the Tucson, Arizona shooter

In regards to Tsarneav’s potential of receiving the death penalty, SHS History teacher Ms. True is torn. True said, “There is some aspect of me that wants him to sit and jail and deal with the punishment but on the flip side there were a lot of other innocent people that were killed which is not right.” The age of the defendant has a great impact on True’s opinions relating to the potential sentence. True said, “Being a teacher and knowing so many kids close to the age of the defendant, I know that kids that age sometimes make choices that they would never make in a couple years from now.  There is something about putting someone to death who is only 19 years old that just upsets me.”

Since the September 11th attacks on the United States, the types of crimes that could lead to the death penalty have expanded greatly. Both the Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002 and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 have broadened the use of the death penalty for crimes that are determined to be related to terrorist activity or intent. For now, it is too early to tell if Tsarnaev will be subject to the penalty because the case is still under development. Unfortunately, cases like these are becoming more and more common, therefore making the judicial decisions reached important and influential, as they make set a precedent and affect cases in the future. If both Holmes’ and Tsarneav were to receive a death sentence, it would greatly impact cases like theirs in the future.