The world is now approaching the final chapter in the tragedy of the Boston Marathon bombings. Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the 21-year-old Chechen accused of planning and detonating two homemade pressure cooker bombs along with his deceased brother Tamerlan, entered court on Jan. 5 in a trial that will ultimately determine how he will live the rest of his life, however long it may be.

I need not remind you at this point that the Marathon bombs contained shrapnel that killed three people and seriously injured 264 more. I need not remind you that the Tsarnaev brothers were immigrants from Chechnya, that Tamerlan was a domineering presence in the mostly peaceful Dzokhar’s life and that the bombing itself was likely Tamerlan’s idea. Almost two years removed from the incident itself, the world has seen a thousand times over the shaky camera footage of the bombing, the gory photos of the victims and the confused expression of the defendant’s shaggy-haired mugshot. It has even seen the controversial publication of the defendant’s face on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. It was an event that shocked the world, and, as is typical for these types of events, it was something that just wouldn’t go away.

Now, there have been calls for it to do just that. On Dec. 10, Nancy Gertner, Michael B. Keating and Martin F. Murphy—a federal judge and two lawyers, respectively—published an op-ed in the Boston Globe, asking both the defense and the prosecution to get this final chapter over with quickly so that the world need not dwell on this difficult case any longer. Specifically, the writers asked that the federal government accept a guilty verdict from the defense and sentence Tsarnaev to life in prison. Tsarnaev would waive his right to trial, and those survivors who wished to speak at a final sentencing hearing—then, the case would officially be over. 

Gertner, Keating and Murphy argued in the op-ed that the people of Boston have suffered enough in this deeply personal case and that there is no reason to hold up the sentencing with endless debates about the death penalty and the mitigating factors, especially when doing so may bring up traumatic and bitter memories. In their words, “Wouldn’t it be better if the Justice Department and Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys got past the legal technicalities and found common ground? Let’s write a last chapter that guarantees just punishment for Tsarnaev while putting the victims and the community at the center of the legal system’s concerns.”

This alternate path is legally sound, and at first glance it appears to be a miracle cure for the current problems with the trial. It’s been a challenge to form an impartial jury for the trial, but no jury is necessary if the defendant waives his right to trial. The common precedent for this procedure is for the defendant to receive life in prison, ending the debate over the death penalty in such a way that Massachusetts need not navel-gaze about its own illegalization of capital punishment. Most of all, as the writers emphasize, it’s quick.

Tsarnaev has not waived his right to trial and has instead entered a not guilty verdict. It appears there is now no chance for this miracle cure to occur. But even if this legal maneuvering were to be employed, I find it hard to believe that any of the issues outside of the courtroom, arguably the most important ones, will somehow disappear. 

No matter when and how Dzokhar Tsarnaev is convicted, journalists will still fill their front pages with exacting details of what happens to the young terrorist. Survivors will still have to adjust to how their lives have changed after the bombs, and the city will still need to recover as a whole. This recovery is an ongoing process, and in the year since the bombing, Boston has earned deep admiration from the entire international community for its bravery. At this point, the trial itself will be mostly retreading old ground, ground which Boston knows well and has prepared itself for.

Yes, ending the trial as soon as possible is absolutely best for the city, country and community. Had both legal sides agreed to an expedient arrangement, far be it from me to complain. But let us not force a quick, easy solution to the complicated problem of justice. 

A criminal trial is not about what satisfies the people, it’s about determining guilt and the appropriate punishment for guilt, however long that might take or difficult that might be to determine. Horrific as Tsarnaev’s crimes may have been, he is still a legal defendant with all the rights therein, and if he chooses not to waive his right to trial, it is a choice we must respect. Otherwise, he will truly have been tried in the court of public opinion, and a critical American right will be threatened. 

That Tsarnaev is guilty is likely a foregone conclusion, and whether he will be killed for his crimes is a difficult question which I am happy to leave to the jurors. 

But it is a difficult question that must be fully explored and considered, however long or however complicated it may be. Boston is strong enough to show the restraint and courage to respect Tsarnaev and his rights and to face this final chapter with grace and dignity.