Regardless of Tsarnaev trial outcome, justice must come from a legitimate trial

Almost two years after the Boston Marathon bombing and the resulting chaos, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s trial is finally approaching. The trial, which is expected to last for months, will be a trying time for this city; some of our most painful memories will be brought back as the events of those awful April days are re-examined. However, our lasting anger, sadness and frustration over the bombings must not be an impediment to Tsarnaev’s right to a fair trial.

Although the trial has yet to officially begin, it is already embroiled in controversy. Much of this controversy stems from issues surrounding jury selection. The court is charged with the daunting task of overseeing the selection of an impartial jury whose opinions of the defendant, Tsarnaev, have not already been colored by their prior knowledge of the incident, which has quite clearly affected most, if not all, Americans. This process, which is currently under way, has lasted far longer than originally expected.

The reasons for this are troubling. First, there’s the fact that the trial will take place in Boston. Unsurprisingly, finding local jurors who do not already have an opinion on Tsarnaev’s guilt or innocence has been extremely difficult. According to the New York Times, 68 percent of the jurors screened so far are already convinced that he is guilty, while 69 percent stated that they felt personally connected to the case. In an attempt to evade this glaring issue, Tsarnaev’s defense team has made four separate requests that the trial be moved to a location farther away from the scene of the bombings, but so far the requests have not been granted.

Second, because the Justice Department is pursuing the death penalty for Tsarnaev, jurors must be morally unopposed to capital punishment in order to be selected. This narrows the pool of possible jurors even further; Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984, and its approval has been steadily decreasing across the country for years.We already know that the majority of Massachusetts voters are fundamentally opposed to this outcome, and are thereby automatically disqualified from sitting on the jury. Additionally, because of the demographic breakdown of death penalty supporters, who are more likely to be white, male Republicans, the jury is less likely to be an accurate representation of the American public.

The problems inherent in a jury selection like this one do not exactly inspire confidence in the moral purity of the justice system. It is important, however, that we resist rushing through this trial, eager to arrive at a death penalty verdict, an execution and “vengeance” -- whatever that means. Regardless of one's personal views of Tsarnaev, by choosing the federal legal system as a medium to discuss crimes against society and retribution for said crimes, the government has rested the legitimacy of its right to punish wrongdoers in the hands of the people.

While it is perfectly understandable that many would like to see this case over and done with as soon as possible, we need to take great care to ensure that justice is rightfully served. No one is denying that the acts committed at the marathon are inexcusable and shouldn't go unpunished. The presumption of innocence, however, is one of the bedrocks of our judicial system, and if jurors do not have open minds before the trial begins, the process is hardly more than a sham. When we arrive at a verdict and sentence, it should be a fair and just one, legitimized by the tenants enshrined in liberty and justice.

Given the tremendous amount of evidence against him, there is little doubt that Tsarnaev will be found guilty. The real question at hand here will be whether or not we can collectively set aside our biases and give him the fair trial that he deserves. The issue of the death penalty is one thing, but if we cannot legitimize a sentence by fair trial and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the very basis of our legal system becomes called into question. We must remain committed to our values and to justice, no matter how emotionally conflicting that may be.