Sentence tsarnaev to death. Joining me to talk about this and its implications are rikki klieman, an attorney and legal analyst for cbs news. Masha gessen, a journalist and author of a new book about the Boston Marathon bombers called the brothers ode to an american tragedy. Mike barnicle is a contributing editor for msnbc and a former colleague for the boston globe and boston herald. And a wellknown bostonian. Joining us in new york is dan abrams, he is abc news chief analyst. I am pleased to have them here. I begin with rikki klieman. What is this . Rikki this is the verdict form. It is 32 pages. One of the largest and most complex ive ever seen in a criminal case. There are parts to each count. It is not just only answering guilty or not guilty on 30 counts. There are 99 decisions the jury had to make. Making a decision of guilt or not as to itch each of the subaccounts. I think that was an adequate time. The defense said to the jurors he did it. It was him. He should be held responsible. Opening and closing. It wasnt that this jury had to really think about whether he was not guilty. They only had to think about whether the government proved each element of these counts. Charlie does this surprise you at all . Dan no. When the defense is coming forward and saying my client did it, it is not a tough decision they have to make. It was complicated in the way that rikki is describing but it was not a hard choice. It is a different issue when youre talking about are they going to impose the Death Penalty. I dont think talking about how quickly they did it is going to tell us anything about whether these same 12 jurors will now come back and decide to impose the Death Penalty. That is a very different question. Charlie what might influence them . Dan they are supposed to waive the reasons to execute. The severity of the crime, etc. The defense will argue it was primarily his brother who did this and not him. In the end when you are talking about the Death Penalty, it becomes a got called. There is not a right way to argue mitigating. Do the jurors think this person deserves to die . You have at least one juror who said she opposes the Death Penalty. She said she could impose it but she is personally opposed to it. The fact that this was an easy call for the jurors in the guilt phase says nothing about how hard this may be in the state of massachusetts when it comes to the penalties. Charlie what do you think the people of boston would want to happen to him . Mike there is a sense of pride and the nobility of our Justice System that these two brothers one did and one has been on trial. We did it. American justice worked. We had a trial of the terrorists. He was found guilty. Now we go into a another phase. With all due respect to the lloyd uris, you set the statute side. Human nature plays a governing role. You have the life of a human being in your hand. It is going to be interesting to see what happens during the course of this phase. Judy clark, the defense lawyer did a masterful job in making sure the jury did not find the defense of noxious. Of bnoxious. There will be an element of sympathy, that will play a role. Charlie tell me what you learned about these two men in writing this book . Masha it is a tragic story. These were two kids who were moved around from place to place, never at home anywhere. They were born in chechnya, but they moved around their entire lives. They were not accepted anywhere. The American Dream shown for a while and then it didnt. It is a sad story. Charlie how did they come what they became . Masha you can never tell. There are millions of people who have had bad luck, been marginalized, and who dont go and build bombs. There is a logical leap there any way. You can just tell the story leading up to it. In that sense the defense has a good case that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev probably would not have taken the leap without the older brother. Rikki there is an interesting question about gut reaction. When we are looking at the Death Penalty, they have to decide is this defendant the worst of the worst . The governments argument is if not him then who . This gives us the counterpoint. His brother. His brother was worse than he was. Perhaps though his brother is dead, if they had been on trial to gather, perhaps the brother what have gotten the Death Penalty. That is a very interesting argument for the defense to make literally or even as a subject. Dan you only need one juror to say i am not willing to impose the Death Penalty and it is over. An interesting question is going to be does he testify . It is unlikely. It would be smarter than testifying in the guilt phase. The only way you would consider putting him on the stand is if he is going to Say Something different than he said scrawled into the boat for he was found. He cannot say i did this because americans are killing innocents in afghanistan. He would have to say im horribly i am horribly sorry. My brother brainwash me. I cannot believe what i did. I think the likelihood of him being willing and able to say that is very small. The chance that he will testify is small. Charlie can he be cross examined . Dan absolutely. Rikki i agree the strategy has been amazing to watch. The defense has set back. It has a cross examined anyone directly affected by the bombing. They have only cross examined some fbi agents and experts. I wouldnt be terribly surprised , it is highly unusual for a defendant to testify. I wouldnt be surprised if he did. Mike i would be stunned given the evidence i have heard of people who handled him during the course of the trial, taking him in and out. Charlie what anecdotal evidence . Mike that he is sullen cantankerous better, nonverbal appears to give off charlie does he want martyrdom . Mike yes. Rikki you have advice not to take the stand. He has the right to over your objection. He gets on the stand and says i want martyrdom, i want to join my brother, i want to go to paradise, kill me, they can either agree with him, or they can spite him. They could decide if you want smarter dem perhaps they should give martyrdom perhaps they should give him life. No lawyer will want him to testify. They dont know who he is going to be when he gets up there. Mike from those who have attended the trial, media people and assistant u. S. Attorneys, they would tell you repeatedly the most powerful motive for the Death Penalty, for the jury, would be a film clip the prosecution showed of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev standing directly behind the young 18yearold placing his backpack down behind this young boy, whose body was shredded, whose autopsy was read to the joy. Read to the jury. He is therefore 45 seconds. Not a random act. He knew his surroundings, knew who was in front of him. That would be the primary motive for a jury to say i am against the Death Penalty. But boom. [indiscernible] masha ive attended most of the trial. We dont know what he says. That is confidential. We dont hear the chatter. They do seem to have excellent rapport. It is amazing to watch. They joke. Charlie she is a very good attorney. Masha also marian conrad, who seems to have an even better rapport with them. It is kind of moving to watch. You can see them treating him [indiscernible] rikki which i think is important. Mike what has taken place in that courtroom in boston is an amazing tribute to our Justice System in this country. Dan i was going to say, if you think about the contact she is having with him, very often loiters lawyers know when the jury is watching. Every move they make when they are communicating with their client both physically and verbally, they know. They are being watched. When you think about the fact her only goal here is to save his life, one of those rare cases where she is not disputing her client is guilty, where she is just trying to save his life Little Things tend to mean more than they would in an ordinary case. That is the only thing that is an issue. Charlie how is boston today . Mike boston is fine. It has been two years to the day since this occurred. There has been a marathon of the spirit in greater boston. People have continued on with their lives, shocked from what happened. The event is an of enormous event. But people have gotten on. People who lost limbs and were injured. They have shown amazing strength and spirit for all of us to admire. Charlie thank you for coming. Good to see you. The book is the brothers. We will be right back. Stay with us. Charlie Jeffrey Lieberman is here. He is the former president of the American Psychiatric association. His new book is called shrinks. It tackles the mixed legacy of Sigmund Freud and the latest discoveries in brain science. Welcome. Dr. Lieberman thank you. I love to be here. Charlie lets talk about the obvious things. Do psychiatrists like the word shrink . Dr. Lieberman not really. It is demeaning. When i told the title, it was prior in the palace of medicine. She said no, she came back and said here is your title, shrinks. Demeaning, do you want to sell books . Charlie you say the following about your profession. The profession remains the most distrusted fear it, and denigrated of all medical specialties. Dr. Lieberman it is. Charlie why . Dr. Lieberman the Rodney Dangerfield of medical specialties. When medicine began to be a scientific thing, and to go into subspecialties, psychiatry was the run of the litter and became a late bloomer. The reason was, as medical Research Identified mainly in postmortem studies of cadavers Heart Disease and cancer respiratory illnesses, when it came to the brain and Mental Illness they came up emptyhanded. They couldnt find anything. With no Scientific Evidence for an illness, no operative theory or framework to understand Mental Illness, Sigmund Freud entered the picture and he filled the vacuum with this theory of the mind, which was entirely a theory, and it was metaphysical. Charlie why did it take over as so defining of psychiatry . Dr. Lieberman hes an interesting character. Hes the most a miss psychiatrist in human history. He was not actually a psychiatrist. He was trained as an raleigh just. At the time neurologists would see people with behavioral disturbances. There was no scientific basis for this. What he did was invented and understanding, a conception of the human mind which explained how people became who they were as a person and what motivated their behavior. At the time it was revolutionary. The thinking was everybody knew exactly what was in their mind and what caused them to do with they did. We had no idea of the unconscious, of the idea of defense mechanisms, that there were different components of the mind. She invented it. He made two mistakes. That he was a control freak, and he would not permit his theory to be subject to scientific verification. You had to accept it on face and it became a dogma and religion. Charlie because he thought it would be debunked . Dr. Lieberman he had doubts of confidence. He thought people would begin to distort it and implement the talking inappropriately. The second mistake was his followers, his disciples. His theory applies to the worried well, people who do not have illnesses, who just have challenges in daily living. It has no relevance to Mental Illness schizophrenia manicdepressive illness depression, excessive compulsive disorder, autism. Charlie illnesses of the brain. Dr. Lieberman and when his disciples began to apply it to these conditions, for example one of his disciples, a psychiatrist in the story i never promised you a rose garden she called it a schizophrenic mother suggesting the mothers behavior towards the child was because of the way the mother treated the child. Towards the child was the reason for schizophrenia. They committed one of the most heinous sins of all, they labeled homosexuality a disorder , and explain that is happening in overinvolved, controlling, castrating mother and a week father. This weak father. This was a grievous mistake that cause the country to lose [indiscernible] charlie the greatest hero of psychiatry and the most calamitous. Dr. Lieberman exactly. Charlie when did narrow science to have an impact . The idea of being able to look at the brain from a molecular level. Dr. Lieberman there is a former chairman of psychiatry at yale who made a telling comment in the late 1960s, 1970s. This was after psychopharmacology, with the medications for Mental Illness, and the beginning of narrow imaging, molecular biology having an impact. For the last 50 years psychiatrists have been brainless, and now we are going to be mindless. We are going to over focus on the brain, neurons cells, and not think about the mind. Charlie swinging back to some balance now. Dr. Lieberman exactly. The oscillations that have characterized the field are now arriving at a point which really embraces neuroscience to understand how the brain works, and how it underpins Human Behavior and disturbances, but also that no matter how much you know about human biology, the construct of the mind and the personality is still something that has to be appreciated in order to be able to diagnose Mental Illness and treat people effectively. Charlie what is your definition of the difference between the brain and the mind. Dr. Lieberman the brain is the organ. The mind is a metaphysical construct which describes the mental functions of the brain. The brain one of the things that i think has been not appreciated about psychiatry, psychiatry gets a bad rap for a lot of things. It is not that people were slackers. It is not that they want smart. The brain is so much harder. You do this wonderful series which describes the brain, the heart is vital important in our culture. The heart is a pump. It is a muscle. The kidney is a filter. The long is a bellows. The brain, 100 billion neurons 33 connections. Able to perform a myriad of connections from your temperature to insights and creativity to produce art and things of that sort. It is the most complicated organ in the universe. And it has taken a long time to understand it. We have just scratched the surface. Charlie what do you hope to achieve from the president brain initiative. Dr. Lieberman when i first heard about that we kind of groaned. It is going to focus on neurotechnology and psychiatry hasnt really benefited that much from technology in the past. When you really look into it, it is going to be tremendously beneficial for all areas of science. The reason is this scientific progress is only enabled by the level of Technology Available to it. Galileo could not have proved heliocentric some without a telescope. What we have come to understand is that even though we can do a lot of things in the brain using various basic science disciplines to physiology, the brain when it becomes too behavioral and mental functions, you have to be able to monitor tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of cells and multiple narrow circuit simultaneously to understand why you perceive something, you interpret the information, make a judgment and decide to hack this way. We dont have the tools to do it. The initiative is to create a new, more powerful set of tools to deconstruct the brain. Charlie there was an incident in South Carolina about a Police Officer shooting a man in the back. A disturbing video. Without knowing any facts does that have to do with what . All kinds of emotional things . Fear . Race . Does it have to do with influence that shaped ones capacity to toreact . Dr. Lieberman it is potentially any one of a number of things you mentioned. Charlie without having seen or talked to the subject. Dr. Lieberman the first thing is, i would say it is unlikely that it was due to Mental Illness. More likely it is due to an individual who reacted to a situation and made a very bad judgment. Alternatively somebody who is prone to sadistic and aggressive behavior and has bad impulse control. These are aspects of the broad range of Human Behavior that many people possess and are vulnerable to as opposed to Mental Illness. We have many accidents where Mental Illness has been the reason that has compelled them to their violent act. We talked about Jared Lautner who was schizophrenic and acting at the behest of this psychotic symptom. The Police Officer in South Carolina was not that kind of person. This was something due to his character and the way he reacted to the situation. Charlie without having talked to him and knowing. We all asked ourselves those questions. Dr. Lieberman when you come up against these violent incidents whether it is Timothy Mcveigh blowing up the Federal Building in oklahoma, whether it is major hassan and fort hood, or adam lanza or whether it is this pilot in the german wings plane. There is a method and a body of knowledge to be able to discern what is the motivation and cause of it . The massive the method is a deductive method of knowing who the individual is, and what degree they may have been related to a Mental Illness, or some of the more mundane motivations that characterize Human Behavior. Whether it is a crime of passion, crime of greed, a vendetta to try and take revenge, or something. These are all understandable. Often times, what happens in the discourses they get lumped in together and conflated with someones at political issue. Given adequate information we are able to make more precise determination.