Do you agree with the decision to pursue the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

Michael Olson January 31, 2014, 6:48 AM Jan 31, 2014

“Federal prosecutors Thursday announced they will seek the death penalty against 20-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston Marathon bombing, accusing him of betraying his adopted country by ruthlessly carrying out a terrorist attack calculated to cause maximum carnage,” reports the Associated Press.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to press for Tsarnaev’s execution was widely expected. The twin blasts last April killed three people and wounded more than 260, and over half the 30 federal charges against Tsarnaev — including using a weapon of mass destruction to kill — carry a possible death sentence.

“The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision,” Holder said in a statement of just two terse and dispassionate sentences that instantly raised the stakes in one of the most wrenching criminal cases Boston has ever seen.

Boston Marathon bombing suspect 'deserves death,' survivor says http://t.co/oXUkAYRgEp

— WCVB-TV Boston (@WCVB) January 31, 2014

Boston bombings suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's mother says "I feel nothing" over son's possible death sentence: http://t.co/6mmRaKCnht

— ABC Foreign Desk (@WorldNews) January 30, 2014

Today’s Question: Do you agree with the decision to pursue the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

About the blogger

Michael Olson

molson@mpr.org • @publicmic

Editor, MPR News

Gary F

yes.
By trying someone with a punishment of death just prolongs the legal process costing the government even more money because of additional number of appeals and delays. Whatever you think you are saving in jail time you are spending more on court time and lawyers.

And I think if a jury knows their decision to fry him they might be apprehensive to convict him.

David

I know you meant “no”.

reggie

There are very few malevolent acts that warrant the extreme punishment of a death sentence, but mass murder — school shootings, the domestic terrorism of blowing up public buildings or health clinics, and certainly the Boston Marathon bombing — is, to me, a clear case. Maybe it harkens back to the human need for a basic balance necessary to maintain social order — an eye for an eye — but in these cases, the swift and certain death of the perpetrator might 1) be a deterrant to future crimes, 2) provide some small measure of closure for the families of the victims, and 3) save us the burden of incarcerating individuals who clearly don’t value their places in society.

B

have to agree with reggie. all bias and hurt feelings aside. this was a choice that him as a human being made. To take the lives of so many people and tear them from their famiiies is, in my mind, gounds for death. People in this damn country need to start realizing that there are consequences for every action that we make. This is a problem. This is a contributing factor to why there are more and more shootings, bomings, hommicides, exc. because what is stopping the people from commiting these crimes. i assure you that is is not the fact that once they commit these crimes the worst punnishment they will recieve is a life sentance sitting in a cell, never having to work and contribute to society ever again, and having us (the tax payers) pay for every bite of food, drink of water, shred of clothing that these lowlife people consume. Im tired of paying for scum to live on my hard earned dollar and its time the rest of the world wakes up and sees it for what it is.

do you as a tax payer want to see somthing disgusting. take some time out of your day today and look up the cost that we pay each year to keep these people who have torn parents, husbands, wifes, and children away from their families alive,

Sue de Nim

No. If We the People kill him, we’ll only be sinking to his level. I want him to grow old in prison watching whatever movement he was trying to promote fade into historical insignificance, hearing his deeds being vilified, and realizing that his actions were ultimately pointless.

kevins

Thanks Sue

PaulJ

I don’t want that type of person around but neither do I want to encourage criminals to think they can avoid prison by dying. Maybe we could kill him and put his family in jail.
Death & a fate worse than death.

Ima B. Musing

No, execution is too easy. Jail for life, continuous life sentences for the rest of his natural life. No possibility of parole. Guantanamo prisoners have a right to a real trial, too.
Ron Green

Yup!
S. Patterson

Nobody “deserves” the death penalty. What are we, barbarians?
JQP

convicted of killing & mandatory review by 2 “superior” courts = death penalty to be carried out in 1 year.

the entire process will be dragging on for 14 years minimum.
Ask me again then.
Jim G

No. I do not believe governments should execute their citizens. I would rather see
him sent to prison for life, without the possibility of parole. In his immature mind, he cannot understand the consequences of his actions in Boston. However, if he lives in captivity he will grow into self-awareness. He certainly will have a lot time to think over his short life of freedom and the decisions, which culminated in his demise. As an old man, he will remember the deaths and the pain of innocents. This is a sufficient punishment.
D.

We should renounce and abandon the death penalty. It does us no good.
Gary F

ooopps

Mine was NO, why did I say Yes?
mke

I’m sympathetic to “reggie,” but no. Most people who consciously and knowingly commit atrocious acts that result in mass deaths expect to die. To not die and to live for what will seem an eternity without companions, with limited sun, with a dulling sameness–that is a living death. More importantly, the trial is yet to take place, the cases from both sides remain to be made–and that “consciously and knowingly” has yet to be determined.
KTN

No.
To what end do we execute people. Who is served by this barbaric practice beyond those who can only consider vengeance as part of a civilized society.

The practice violates the 8th Amendment especially if you believe in original meaning, but the Court disagrees with me on this one.

The amendment reads “cruel and unusual” not cruel or unusual. We execute so few people that the practice is certainly unusual, and I guess depending on how you view being killed while a group of people watch, seems sort of cruel too.
Rich in Duluth

No.

The “nature” and “resultant harm” of Tsarnaev’s crime doesn’t make the death penalty any less barbaric or cruel. If it’s wrong for an individual to kill another human being then it’s wrong for the state to do it.

The death penalty is revenge, not justice. The “eye for an eye” argument is unsophisticated Bronze Age thinking. The death penalty, obviously, doesn’t deter heinous crimes such as this. And it doesn’t provide “closure”, whatever that is, because it changes nothing for the victims.
- reggie
  
  Rich, I know I am at odds with you, Sue and several other commenters with whom I usually agree on issues of the day, but there is nothing “obvious” that the death penalty doesn’t deter heinous crimes. We simply don’t know how effectively it might deter these extreme crimes because we don’t apply it with any measure of consistency. At a minimum, it would guarantee that a sociopath (assuming conviction) causes no further harm, not even while in prison.
  
  I would generally oppose the use of the death penalty, except in these extremes. But if a perpetrator is convicted of a crime like this, I cannot fathom what good is accomplished by a life sentence without parole. That seems a far more cruel and unusual punishment. We aren’t hoping for rehabilitation, so what is the point of a life sentence?
  - Jim G
    
    Sorry for jumping in here, RIch. I do not support the death penalty for two reasons.
    
    First, when the State kills in our name, it makes us part of the execution. In the Biblical times there was once a practice called stoning. It was used by communities to rid themselves of those deemed unworthy of the life with the society. Each person in attendance would hurl their stone at the condemned. Although today we do not actually throw a rock, we do symbolically, and just as certainly we cause the death of a person by supporting state execution.
    
    My second reason is also found in the Bible. Jesus was unjustly tried and convicted and sentenced to death with two other criminals. One of the criminals turned to Jesus and ( I’m paraphrasing here.) said,”If you really are a god, show us your power and save yourself and us from this crucification.” The second criminal rebuked the first,”Don’t you fear God?, he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what we deserve, But this man has done nothing wrong. Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
    
    Jesus answered him, ” I tell you the truth, today you will be with in paradise.” Here is the reference: Luke 39-43.
    
    Two men under the same death sentence, one chose to spit into the face of God while the other chose redemption. I say let’s give Tsarnaev a chance at redemption, even though there is a chance he will spit into our faces and the face of God.
    - reggie
      
      I appreciate your jumping in, Jim, although I don’t think invoking christianity, or religion in general, is particularly helpful here. In a secular society with pluralistic views, we need to address this in terms of what humans can and should do to address distinctly human problems.
      
      We allow the state to kill in our name all the time. I guess I don’t see a significant difference between a declaration of war (or worse, sending troops abroad without a declaration of war) and a decision to sentence an extreme criminal to death. We seem to be blithely comfortable with the former, even when it can cause indescribable collateral damage, and yet reluctant to apply the sentence to an individual convicted of actually doing us harm.
      
      (All of this, of course, assumes an incontrovertible conviction of the criminal.)
      - Jim G
        
        We all live with the moral guidelines and rules we are taught. Mine are rooted in Biblical writings, while others take their guidance from more secular sources. My universal truth is to do good in this life and minimize the damage I do to others, both purposefully and accidentally. Have a good weekend, and be warm: our malevolent weather is literally trying to kill us.
  - Rich in Duluth
    
    Reggie
    
    Assuming he’s convicted, I offer as “obvious” the fact that he did the bombing. It’s well known that the U.S. has the death penalty for this kind of crime and it didn’t deter him from participating in the bombing. In addition, premeditated murder continues to happen in this country in the various states, whether the state it occurs in has the death penalty or not.
    
    IMO, the death penalty is a failure in consistent thinking. We say it’s wrong to plan to kill someone and then kill them, but we’re doing exactly what we say is wrong, when we allow the state to kill.
    
    I want the state to set a good example of not killing people, and that, I see, is the good accomplished by a life sentence.
Bill

The news media makes this guy out to be guilty before he has had a trial. Why is it that no one has interviewed him?
B

is burning at the stake still legal. thats my vote.
Bob

first prove he did it, then , no in this case that is way too good for him, maybe blow his legs off? then life in jail. I do not believe in the death penalty.
- Kevin
  
  But you believe in blowing peoples legs off?
  - bob
    
    no, not ever, but that is what he is accused of.
David

Thorough entheogenic therapy is necessary. Both by him and the rest of the nation/world.

The death penalty is barbaric and reflects an institutionalized belief in violence and fear of death.

Let’s deal with it, deeply.
Then we shall know peace.