In an op-ed in the Boston Herald, Michael Avery, pro­fes­sor emer­i­tus at Suffolk University Law School, whose sis­ter and niece were mur­dered 30 years ago, sug­gest­ed that a plea bar­gain might be a bet­ter our­come for all con­cerned in the case of Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the defen­dant in the Boston Marathon bomb­ing. A tri­al, he said, would be painful for vic­tims and sur­vivors: ​“Boston will relive every tortu[r]ous moment of the bomb­ing, over and over, prob­a­bly for weeks…if Tsarnaev is con­vict­ed, we’ll have a sec­ond tri­al on the penal­ty. The defense lawyers will present evi­dence in mit­i­ga­tion of the death sen­tence. We’ll suf­fer through two Chechen wars, a Russian occu­pa­tion, and a psy­cho­analy­sis of the defen­dant.” He reflect­ed on his own expe­ri­ence when his sister’s killer was put on tri­al: ​“Although I’m a lawyer, I didn’t go, and I didn’t read the Florida papers report­ing the evi­dence. I couldn’t have han­dled it. My heart goes out to the peo­ple who won’t be able to han­dle the Tsarnaev tri­al. They won’t be able to avoid the mas­sive pub­lic­i­ty.” He urged Attorney General Eric Holder to spare all of Boston fur­ther trau­ma by accept­ing a guilty plea and a sen­tence of life in prison. Read the full op-ed below.

As You Were Saying…Spare bomb survivors trial trauma

Federal pros­e­cu­tors have an impor­tant deci­sion to make in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber, whose tri­al begins in January. Will they insist on the death penal­ty, or will they take a sen­tence of life impris­on­ment in exchange for a guilty plea? In about half the fed­er­al cas­es where the gov­ern­ment ini­tial­ly seeks death, it takes it off the table before tri­al. It should do so here.

Why shouldn’t the gov­ern­ment ask for death if Tsarnaev is con­vict­ed of killing three inno­cent peo­ple and wound­ing over 260 oth­ers, with bombs designed to max­i­mize seri­ous per­son­al injuries? A major­i­ty of Massachusetts cit­i­zens are cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly opposed to the death penal­ty, but the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment brought this case.

Suppose you vot­ed for the death penal­ty — why shouldn’t we go for it in this case? I know. You don’t want to hear this. You’re say­ing the guy deserves it. Case closed. But think about what it’s real­ly going to take to close this case.

This won’t be a short tri­al. Boston will relive every tortu[r]ous moment of the bomb­ing, over and over, prob­a­bly for weeks. We’ll go shop­ping with the Tsarnaev broth­ers for com­po­nents, learn how they built the bombs, watch them explode mul­ti­ple times from mul­ti­ple angles, and see more pic­tures of the vic­tims than we can stom­ach. We’ll attend the dead­ly shootouts as the per­pe­tra­tors attempt­ed to escape, and see more grue­some pho­tos. Then if Tsarnaev is con­vict­ed, we’ll have a sec­ond tri­al on the penal­ty. The defense lawyers will present evi­dence in mit­i­ga­tion of the death sen­tence. We’ll suf­fer through two Chechen wars, a Russian occu­pa­tion, and a psy­cho­analy­sis of the defendant.

Do we need this? How will this reliv­ing of the marathon bomb­ing affect our com­mu­ni­ty, par­tic­u­lar­ly the vic­tims? The process­es of griev­ing and accep­tance of loss began over 18 months ago, inde­pen­dent of the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. Will a death penal­ty tri­al speed the heal­ing, or set it back? Will it bring peo­ple clos­er togeth­er, or divide them? Will the tri­al ignite flash­backs, forc­ing peo­ple to relive the most exquis­ite­ly painful moments of their lives?

There is almost no research on the effects of death penal­ty tri­als on vic­tims and sur­vivors. Not every­one reacts the same. No one can say what the vic­tims and sur­vivors want because they don’t all want the same thing. But for some, a death penal­ty tri­al will be hell.

I know a lit­tle bit about this. Over 30 years ago a guy went into a super­mar­ket on July Fourth week­end in Tampa, Fla., threw the con­tents of a can of gaso­line on the peo­ple at the check­out counter, then lit it with a match. He burned five peo­ple to death, includ­ing my 23-year-old sis­ter and her 3‑year-old daugh­ter. There was a death penal­ty tri­al. Although I’m a lawyer, I didn’t go, and I didn’t read the Florida papers report­ing the evi­dence. I couldn’t have han­dled it. My heart goes out to the peo­ple who won’t be able to han­dle the Tsarnaev tri­al. They won’t be able to avoid the massive publicity.

I think about my sis­ter Marty a lot. I nev­er think about the guy. He’s serv­ing sev­er­al con­sec­u­tive life sen­tences and will nev­er see the light of day. Fine. He’s dead to me. The same thing will hap­pen to Tsarnaev if he pleads guilty, which he will undoubt­ed­ly do if the pros­e­cu­tion drops its request for the death penal­ty. That is what Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz should do. Not for Tsarnaev. For Boston.

Michael Avery is pro­fes­sor emer­i­tus at Suffolk University Law School. ​“As You Were Saying” is a reg­u­lar Herald feature.

(M. Avery, ​“As You Were Saying…Spare bomb sur­vivors tri­al trau­ma,” Boston Herald, op-ed, November 28, 2014). See New Voices, Federal Death Penalty, and Victims.