The Boston bombing trial is underway - Should Tsarnaev revieve the death penalty?

Asked by: prankster335
  • He should be

    I beleive that he has to be exceuted, for commiting a grave act of terrorism that I would argue is a crime agianst humanity, and the fact that he tried to kill so many people at the marathon. It was a miracle that more weren't killed out right through his actions.

  • Cook him. But don't throw the scraps away

    Premeditated he knew what he was doing He is a terrorist. I always get a lot of crap for saying this. Organs should be harvested. We could save many lives. He should know that before he dies. That in his death some people will be given life. Prisoners have rights. They should not. If he can laugh once that's too much. No joy for him. The small boy that was killed will never laugh,smile or cry again.

  • Yes he deserves death.

    He killed multiple people and maimed many others. He is an enemy. The death penalty is a morally correct course of action.

    And for the ones who think he should suffer more ... I can agree with that. For the ones who think death sentence is not morally right because it teaches revenge, know that most people view a life in jail as a form of torture and far worse a punishment. Still getting revenge ... Just through torture instead of death. I don't get where your disconnect is between the humanity of the two, but sparing someone from death to keep them in jail for life is no better.

  • Yes, I believe he should be

    Ive always supported the death penalty for serious crimes (first degree murder, massacres, terror attacks, ect.). Ive often been criticized as a barbaric sadist for this belief. But when I see the people on the NO side of this, OMG. You want this man to suffer as long, painful, and torturous life possible. I just want to kill the guy and be done with it. So tell me, whose the real barbarians here.

  • Why kill him?

    First thing, the death penalty is morally incorrect. Why kill someone? It's not the right thing to do. No one deserves to die. Everyone is human and is a valuable person.

    Second thing, why can't we forgive him? Why seek revenge? We shouldn't harm him because he did something bad. Maybe we should keep him in jail so he doesn't commit another crime-but death. No.

    Third-the chance. The chance of him being innocent. There's always a chance-maybe even a very low one that someone who has received the death penalty was innocent. Murdering an innocent person is like killing a mockingbird. Yes, he Tsarnaev is most likely guilty but what if that's wrong? Then we just killed a mockingbird.

  • No. Absolutely not.

    Tsarnaev shouldn't receive the death penalty because no one should ever receive the death penalty. Its just plain irrational, vengeful, and just plain wrong. It should be blanket banned no matter what the circumstances because as a society we should have already progressed passed such an insanely morally disgusting practice.

  • No, I do not think he should be executed for this.

    From this execution, we are teaching this country that revenge is always better, than pure suffering. Any morality in this is non-existent and teaches us that killing is okay. Even if he killed people, he deserves a life sentence instead, because then he will suffer real pain: sorrow, loneliness, rejection, repulsion, and wanting death everyday because of what he's going through. Killing people for killing others is not right, and it's disgusting to even think that people find this the correct choice in these types of situations.

  • Why should someone like him get the death penalty?

    Someone who has done what he has done should not be given the mercy of death. He should be made to suffer long and hard in the confines of prison where he will eventually die a sad and lonely death. If he gets the death penalty, he is let off with a painless calm death and he gets his martyrdom or whatever and his relatives will be the ones hurt. He should just be made to go through whatever lies inside the confines of prison.

  • What would be the point?

    This would accomplish nothing except retribution. Don't even give me that crap about how I will be paying to take care of him in jail as a tax payer. The appeals that people go through before being executed cost a load of money. And on top of that, taxpayers have to pay to take care of people in jail while they're going through those appeals.

  • Death is too easy

    Death is the easy way out. If Tsarnaev receives the death penalty, he will not have to face the aftermath and the consequences of his actions. Death is relatively painless and quick. Prison would be a more suitable punishment. That way, he will have time to think about his actions in the confinement of a jail cell.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-03-06T09:51:18.697
It depends. If the state has fulfilled its responsibility - to give him proper education, and make him abandon his evil ways - and he still did the bombings, then he should be put to death. '"When men kill others, and roll over their bodies to take their property, being reckless and fearless of death, among all the people there are none but detest them" - thus, such characters are to be put to death, without waiting to give them warning.' (Mencius 10.4). However, if the state has *not* educated him, instilling in him proper moral values and making him willingly give up his evil ways, then executing him would be no different from committing murder. 'Sir, in carrying on your government, why should you use killing at all? Let your evinced desires be for what is good, and the people will be good. The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend, when the wind blows across it.' (Analects 12.19)