Government has the right to render punishment appropriate to the crime. Life in prison would not fit the audacity committed - especially since it was done willingly and without mercy or regret. Death penalty is really the only option here. To do anything less would be to send a message that the judicial system is too soft.
Nobody should be put to death. Life is a human right. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is still a human being, regardless of his actions.
By the way I would like to thank anyone who shared their opinion here in advance as I know that this is a sensitive topic for some.
Keep in mind as well that this is a terrorist act. If the death penalty is not rendered he could end up spending the rest of his life recruiting sympathizers that could play a hand in future domestic attacks (and this is what the prosecution will argue in the second phase). Yes, he's still guaranteed at least a decade because it'll take that long for the appeal process to reach a conclusion, but this is a huge concern that will come up.
I think the death penalty is the route to go. After 9/11, terrorism has become a fear in many American's lives. The Boston Bombing confirmed this fear. Any info I am quoting is from Cornell University Law School Site I literally use this site so often in my law studies. "The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a penalty must be proportional to the crime; otherwise, the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. In performing its proportionality analysis, the Supreme Court looks to the following three factors: a consideration of the offense's gravity and the stringency of the penalty; a consideration of how the jurisdiction punishes its other criminals; and a consideration of how other jurisdictions punish the same crime." Okay so, this statement says that the Supreme Court has to decided if the actions were proportional to the crime. Most of Boston's population wants this man dead, he committed a devastating act of terrorism whether or not he was pulled into the terrorism thing by his brother. "Congress or any state legislature may prescribe the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, for murder and other capital crimes." So, the death penalty may be issued if and only if Congress or any other state legislature says that it must be prescribed due to murder and other capital crimes. His act of terrorism Killed 3 and injured approximately 264 others, what he did is wrong and deserved the death sentence. "To impose a death sentence, the jury must be guided by the particular circumstances of the criminal, and the court must have conducted an individualized sentencing process." So this statement says that a jury must find he/she guilty of said crime and receive the death penalty. Of course this process has already come through, and is happening now. Death Row "Relying in part on the Supreme Court’s continued refusal to review the issue, lower Federal Courts have not found an extended stay on death row to be unconstitutional." So, do I think he will stay on death row for long if convicted with the death penalty? No. 9/11 terrorists still have not received the death penalty. They are still being held at Guantanamo Bay. I suspect that the government wanted to keep them for questioning in the long run. He may or may not receive the death penalty but he deserves it in my opinion. If he doesnt get the death penalty, he deserves to be locked in a dark hole where he will never see the light of day for the rest of his life. Just my opinion, I hope to hear your opinions. Also if I mistyped anything let me know (especially the analyzing of the quoted material.)
Okay, thanks for posting one in boston. I should change my wording from "most" to "some". The surrounding areas are the areas I know more about on their stance.
I'm kind of torn on this one. Take away someone else's human right (right to life) and supposedly you should lose yours, that would mean death. I don't like the idea of killing people, though. However, if he was put into prison, then comes the concerns of tax payers are unwilling to contribute to paying for this man to live, and there are cons to both sides of this really... I'm quite split between the ideas. Deciding on the fate of a man is a big thing and it shouldn't be taken lightly.
I know what you are saying. I decided over a long time, been thinking on it every time it is on the news. I finally decided that what he did deserves death. They couldnt even find a cemetery that would hold his brother's body (I dont know if they have yet or what they did), that alone shows that a 12 person jury will have a hard time. But the part you said about not taking it lightly, it isnt. That is why the Supreme Court made it so that a 12 person jury has to agree that one deserves the death penalty. If 12 random people who dont even know the defendant decide he needs to die, it must be hard on the jury to decide this man's fate, but that is how the judicial system works.
I assume this is all over the news in America? I haven't heard about the Boston bombings on the news since the actual bombings happened themselves... This question has sort of been sprung on me, so I am quite split also due to being unprepared for it really. A quick evaluation shows cons on both sides though. It'll be a tough one to call.
It has not been on the news lately, but since the case itself started taking place in court it has been on the news alot.
I haven't seen anything about the court parts to the Boston bombing so far, perhaps I have missed something on the news or it simply isn't a big thing here at the minute. Thanks for the info
Sometimes, whether or not we decide people "deserve" death, it seems like that's the option that needs to happen. A lifetime in prison is probably far worse than death, and if the criminal is released (which I think he's not in this case), the criminal can go back to crime immediately. It happens. As for being in prison for life, conditions in prison are harsh*, and he can still do harm while in prison. What I'm saying is whether or not we decide he deserves death or imprisonment, it seems like the more 'logical' way to go. (I'm not choosing sides, I'm just adding reason to one. I haven't really heard of this event). *Whether or not prison conditions are harsh, they still get more outside time and more nutritious meals every day than the average American.
You can almost count on that for sure, I'm sure they may mention the debate about it all over here too. May have missed something on it, but I haven't heard anything yet though.
