Terrorism and Emergency Management in the United State

The United States has reported several cases of bombings that have resulted in death and destruction of property. From time to time, the responsible stakeholders and agencies look into the past events to identify important lessons that can be learned and use to prevent future problems. One of the events that has attracted the attention of researchers and experts is the Boston Marathon bombing. This was a bombing event that occurred in April 15, 2013. Although the bombing took place more than a decade ago, the reverberations of the event continue to be felt by citizens, families, and law enforcement agencies. In addition, it is an event that has influenced law enforcement agencies around the world to rethink of the strategies that they are using to protect citizens ( McPherson et al., 2017 ). Today, the Boston Marathon Bombing remains one of the widely studied events in the world. It has provided insights on how modern cities can respond to urban disasters. There are several factors that helped save life during the bombings. Since the attack was conducted in the course of a mass event, the emergency teams had to respond swiftly to avert further loss of life. In addition, the teams had to use a well-coordinated plan to be able to minimize the effect of the bombing. It is for this reason that the Boston Marathon Bombing remains one of the events that researchers examine to identify critical lessons that can help in preventing attacks, minimizing the adverse effects of a bomb, and responding to emergencies. The perpetrators were quickly tracked down and brought to book for their actions. 

Boston Marathon Bomber 

The Boston marathon Bombing is an event that caught the world unawares and resulted in questions being asked about the safety of the public during mass events. Only three days after disaster, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released images of the two suspects who were believed to have taken part in the bombing. The suspects were two brothers named Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Once the suspects realized that they had been identified, they continued to engage in a series of crimes which including killing a police officers, kidnaping an American, and engaging the police in a shootout. During the shootout, the two brothers sustained severe injuries with one of them losing his life after one year. The police officers worked with members of the public to identify and capture the suspects so that they could be prosecuted for their actions ( McPherson et al., 2017 ). After the two were brought to custody, the law enforcement moved to the next step which was questioning them to identify their motives. During questioning, it was determined that the two had been motivated by the war which was taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq. They had self-radicalized and decided to work on their own to show their displeasure with the war that was taking place in the Arab world. The brothers stated that they had been reading online magazines to learn how to build explosives. In addition, they were planning to engage in other acts of terror in New York. Dzhokhar informed the police that he was working with his brother to defend Islam in the United States. The two believed that the US was engaging in wars in the Arab world with the purpose of harming Muslims. Therefore, they found it necessary to initiate attacks that would show their displeasure with the activities of the US military. 

The claim by the suspects that they were revenging against the activities of the US military has attracted the attention of experts and policy makers. Some have argued that the self-radicalized individuals were out to prove that America could also be attacked just like any other nation. However, some policy and political science researchers have argued that Islam may have played a secondary role in the action of the attackers ( McPherson et al., 2017 ). According to such writers, the primary motive of the two brothers was to get sympathy towards the aspirations of the Caucasians who were living in the region. In addition, it has been reported that the attackers may have wanted the public to listen to the challenges of their community that was suffering to achieve full integration in the American society. In the end, the surviving brother was brought to book after a successful trial. Their actions and motives remain an issue of debate with researchers taking different positions about it. The main objective is to understand the thinking of the attackers and find ways through which such events can be prevented in the future. 

History of Death Penalty with Minors and Relevant Court Case 

One of the issues that has been debated widely ever since the Boston bombing occurred is the subject of death penalty and how it applies to minors. Over the years, there have been concerns regarding the way the law was being applied. In addition, there have been reports of states executing young people who have been found guilty of serious crimes ( Tomes, 1997; McPherson et al., 2017 ). An example is the case of Texas where a young African American named James Echol was executed after being found guilty of rape. Echols is considered to be the last minor to ever face the death penalty in the United States. Since then, the laws related to the death penalty have not be used in the case of minors. In addition, there has been an increase in calls for the abolishment of capital punishment. It is for this reason that states have been reluctant to impose such punishment with courts also looking for ways of dealing with the capital punishment issue. 

The US courts have made significant decisions on the issue of death penalty. In 1972, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v, George that the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty was unconstitutional. According to Justice Potter Stewart, it was a high time the courts thought about capital punishment since it was an act that violated the Eighth Amendment. The ruling meant that all the death penalty statutes failed to apply since there were discriminatory and against the rights of the citizens. Since the ruling, states have been working to pass laws that would protect minors and other people from such actions. Later on in 2005, the Supreme Court made a decision that would outlaw the death penalty for minors. The land mark case in Roper v, Simmons involved a 17 year old ten who had killed a women. When making the determination, the judges argued that the execution of the young offenders was an unusual and cruel punishment. In addition, the judges noted that juveniles lack the mental capacity to make certain decision. Therefore, they should not be treated in the same way as adults who engage in crimes that may require capital punishment. The ruling helped spare the life of several teens who were supposed to be on death row. 

The American society recognizes the fact that children who are below the age of 18 may not be able to act or function as adults. In addition, the children may lack the mental capacity to think about their actions and the consequences that they may have. It is for this reason that the law tends to give special attention to children so that they can be protected from the adverse consequences of their actions. In addition, special steps are usually taken by judges during the trials to give the young people a second chance ( Tomes, 1997; McPherson et al., 2017 ). Presently, the law prohibits those who are below the age of 18 from voting, joining the military or working in juries. The intention is to allow them develop the skills and capabilities needed to make informed decision. Therefore, it is strange that some states still have laws that relate to the execution of the young people for the crimes that they commit before getting to adulthood. The Supreme Court has helped deal with the issue by indicating that such crimes should not attract capital punishment for the young people. Some states have followed suit and passed legislations that clearly states that person who are below 18 years should not be executed. Although adolescents may be held accountable for their actions, there is scientific evidence to show that they cannot function in the same way as adults. In particular, most minors lack the ability to make informed decisions or regulate impulse control. In addition, they have a greater tendency to make decisions without reasoning or thinking about the consequences of their actions. Due to such degree of immaturity, the young people should be protected by the courts from being executed from crimes. 

Influence by Older Brother 

In the last decade, there has been an increased opposition to the execution of minor offenders. In addition, Americans have showed their displeasure in the way minors are treated as adults when they are bought in the court of law. In some cases, concerns have been raised regarding the extent to which death penalty was affecting the children of color. The arguments are based on the fact that most minors who are on death row tend to be members of the African American community ( McPherson et al., 2017 ). Internationally, the execution of minors is considered to be a practice that conflicts the inherent principles of justice. It is for this reason that nations have been working to ban the execution of those below the age of 18. Since the US is a signatory to the International Covenant on Child and Political Right, then it is prudent for states to pass laws that prevent death sentence for young people. The United States government should also work towards protecting the rights of iniors, including those who engage in crimes that may attract severe punishment. In the case involving the Boston Marathon brothers, concerns have been raised regarding the culpability of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It has been argued that even through the attacker was involved in the bombing, he was still a minor who mind have been influenced by his elder brother. The prosecution had always informed the court that it was preferring death penalty against the accused. However, the defense team has also come out to argue that the accused was a minor who lacked the mental capacity to make an informed decision. Therefore, they argue that the use of death penalty can infringe the rights of the accused. The defense team is using social science as the basis for mitigating the use of the death penalty. 

Violence Risk Assessment 

Violence is one of the factors that is usually examined when determining cases involving young people and minors. In most cases, it has been argued that minors tend to lack the skills needed to control their emotions and actions ( Tomes, 1997 ). In addition, the minors tend to engage in violent acts without thinking about the implications of their actions. During the trial of the Boston Bombing attacker, it was argued that the accused had engage in violent acts that resulted in the death of some people and the destruction of property. In addition, the fact that the attackers targeted a mass event was an indication that they wanted their violent actions to cause injury and death to many people. It is for this reason that the jury made a decision to sentence Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The decision was made even after the defense team had strived to make a case that the accused was still a minor whose brain was still developing. The defense team also argued that the fact that the accused was a minor rendered him less culpable to the actions that took place on the day of the attack. Even with the team striving to make a case based on science, the jury still went ahead to convict the attacker. It was argued that the attacker was culpable for the deaths that occurred. In addition, the jury believed that the attacker was an individual with violent tendencies. Since the young man was already self-radicalized, it was believed that he could end up engaging in similar attacks in the future. 

Conclusion 

The United States has been struggling to deal with cases of terror. Some of the attacks are usually done by foreigners while others are conducted by people who live in the United States. The Boston Marathon Bombing was a reminder that the country was still exposed to attacks. The attack was conducted by two brothers who had learned how to make explosives on their own. The attackers had no link to any foreign terrorists but were committed to showing their displeasure with the war that the US was fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The case further brought to light the issue of capital punishment and whether it should be applied to minors. 

References 

Echols v. Austron, Inc., 529 S.W.2d 840  

Furman v, George 408 U.S. 238 (1972) 

McPherson, M., Peng, J., & Petoskey, R. (2017). Building a Mitigation Case for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/Tsarnaev/MitigationCaseTsarnaev.html 

Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. (2003). Less Guilty of Reason by Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 Am. Psychologist 1009 , 1014. 

Tomes, J. (1997). Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't: The Use of Mitigation Experts in Death Penalty Litigation. Am. J. Crim. L. 359, 363-400.