I actually support the death penalty for Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. And the reason may surprise you all. It is because I don’t believe in causing prolong suffering. And I don’t believe in vengeance (which is all I believe retribution really is [sorry if you disagree:)]).
If he is locked up for many years, he will suffer for all that time. Death is usu. relatively painless, even with the death penalty.
Yes, I know that he will still face years of appeals. But I have noticed they usu. treat death row inmates pretty well. They get a cell to themselves. Otherwise, he might be abused by other inmates. And as I said, he will suffer for many years.
Anyways, I certainly don’t want to minimize what he did either. What he did was horrible and reprehensible, I agree. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
(BTW, I really couldn’t decide where this question should go. First I though IMHO. But that is “For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics” which this certainly isn’t, right? I will interested to see how the moderators treat it in any event:).)
He wanted to become a martyr. If he gets the death penalty we make him one. We really shouldn’t give him what he wants. He should get life, with no chance of parole.
I’m confused by the OP’s logic. He seems to be arguing that a long prison sentence is worse suffering than an execution.
I don’t necessarily agree with that premise but I’ll accept it for the sake of argument. But even so, why single out Tsarnaev for execution? Couldn’t you make the same argument for any person sentenced to a long prison sentence? Doesn’t every prisoner looking at a long prison sentence “deserve” the lesser suffering of execution instead? And if not, why does Tsarnaev deserve special consideration that’s denied to other prisoners?
I oppose the death penalty in all cases. I would think, though, that even supporters of it would oppose using it on Islamic terrorists, since those people want to be killed for their crimes.
I don’t agree, but I’m always a little happy when someone sides with me in thinking that being locked in a cage for the rest of your life is a fate worse than death. Sometimes I try to argue this point to the more blood thirsty supporters of DP, but it doesn’t usually find much purchase, or there’s only limited agreement. I suppose you can read books and jerk it still, but after awhile I think I’d go nuts.
If the guy wanted to die he wouldn’t have been so desperate to run away that he drove over his brother, but I agree there’s political value in not executing terrorists in general. No point in making them a martyr internationally. Sitting in a cell doesn’t help your legend much. Rather ignoble, that.
I don’t support the death penalty, and I may actually get to be one of the protestors at Tsarnaev’s execution, since the only federal execution chamber in use right now is in Terre Haute (Timothy McVeigh was executed in Indiana for that reason).
I probably won’t though. I have protested at executions before, but I have mixed feelings about actively protesting this one. Part of the reason is that one of my reasons for opposing the death penalty is that it punishes the family of the executed person, who rarely had anything to do with their crimes. I’m not sure that reason applies in this case. The other is that I’m not sure what Tsarnaev would choose for himself.
I oppose state-imposed execution, but I do think that under certain circumstances, prisoners ought to be offered assisted suicide as a choice, because I don’t oppose suicide, and I don’t think people in prison have less a right to kill themselves than people who are not prisoners. I think people sentenced to life without parole, and assigned to special populations, where they have limited interaction with others, ought to be given the choice, after, say, the first year of their sentence-- if they were offered it immediately post-conviction, I think too many would be in shock and choose it impulsively; I think they should experience the actual prison life they face, and then decide. Not that I have thoroughly thought this out-- that’s just kind of a rough draft of what I’d propose to Drs of Psychology, expert Criminologists and Ethicists to work out after a lot of study and discussion, if I ran the world.
This is a tough one for me. I’ll feel like it’s one for the lose column if (who am I kidding-- when) he gets death, but I won’t protest. It’s been a long time since I protested, because Indiana has a very low execution rate for a DP state. In fact, if the whole country were like Indiana, it wouldn’t be such a hot-button issue for me, because there would be maybe 25 executions a year in the whole country-- one every two years per state. Albeit, of Indiana’s 20 executions since the moratorium was lifted it’s worth noting that nine were under a single governor. We haven’t had one under the current governor. In fact, we haven’t had one since 2009. The TV show The Good Wife has set three in Indiana for the main character to work on, because Illinois doesn’t have the DP, and they’ve all been since 2009. Kinda pisses me off.
Also, I live in Michigan where we’ve never had the death penalty, certainly never as a state. And I must confess that on some level, I actually feel pretty proud of Michigan, for some reason. I guess I am proud Michigan has always been ahead of the curve, when it comes to issues like this.
But like many of you, I have conflicting emotions when it comes to the issue. Also, like RivkahChaya I think some prisoners should be given the option of suicide, if they wish (though I still think the death penalty has some value, as a form of euthanasia).
Also, like most of you, I don’t like the idea of defending a mass murderer. But we all are humans. And we always retain certain rights.
If someone opposes the death penalty except for cases dealing with Islamic terrorists how would they go about implementing that? Don’t you have to treat everyone the same under the law? How do we know that deep down every Islamic terrorist wants to be executed by the state for their crimes? What about non-Islamic terrorists who want to die or be made martyrs?
You might snap after being deprived of your freedom but dangerous murderers might be able to maintain in that kind of environment. They can still read, watch movies, listen to music, maintain friendships with fellow inmates, look at porn, have sex, get visits. They can request protective custody and be on a much less dangerous yard.
On the other hand, if they can’t clique up with a prison gang they probably become targets and end up being abused for their entire stay in prison, being robbed, beaten, stabbed and raped. Would that be okay?
I’m still torn on the issue of the death penalty but I do think that not executing our prisoners provides a good contrast to the savagery of terrorists who behead people.
The death penalty existed in Michigan from Statehood in 1837 until it was eliminated by the state legislature in 1846, except for the crime of treason which was still punishable by death until 1963. The state has never executed anyone under those laws.
I’ve been waffling on the death penalty for a while. I think it is perfectly moral, legal, and in most cases justified, but as we currently practice it, it is more trouble than it is worth. If Tsarnaev doesn’t deserve it, then we should just can it altogether.
I think he should get the death penalty. He is a weak minded young man who would not have committed this crime without the influence of his psychotic brother and a life sentence is cruel and unusual punishment.
When the death penalty was brought back in the 1970s, I figured that, unlike in the bad old days, this time we’d do it right: few people would be executed, and there would be not a shred of doubt about their guilt.
Yeah, I was a wee bit off the mark, wasn’t I?
I’d be in favor of that sort of death penalty if I believed in our ability as a people to successfully keep the death penalty circumscribed to that extent. The evidence of the past four decades says we don’t have that ability. Consequently, there should no death penalty. Even for Tsarnaev.
