If you are opposed to the death penalty, would you suspend your opposition if Dzhokar Tsarnaev is found guilty in federal court of a capital crime?

I am opposed to the death penalty.

Not because I think it is immoral.

I think it is too quick of a punishment. Life in prison is much worse.

So no, I will not change my position on the death penalty.

My reason for being against the death penalty is the same as yours. I am not against the idea of someone dying for a crime. But I am not sure how I feel about Tsarnaev being executed. I don’t need to see it happen, but I don’t think I could give two shits if it did.

No.

I don’t really understand the question. If you are opposed to the death penalty you are opposed to the death penalty.

I opposed it for Timothy McVeigh, too. I still remember on the day of his execution how debasing it felt.

It would have zero deterrent value. No one would be any safer because of it. The only argument to be made for it is to satisfy blood lust. Count me out.

Nope. When you’re dead, you can’t feel any suffering. He should be kept alive to suffer in jail and hopefully go crazy in his cell. Well, more crazy than he already is.

Normally, I would not explicitly advocate for a death penalty. Sometimes I feel that the decision is too permanent, or that it would be better to rehabilitate the criminal.

In cases like this, there is definitive proof of the crime. In addition, I don’t foresee any feasible way to rehabilitate him and turn him into a productive member of society. Any available rehabilitation facilities will be more efficiently used to treat other criminals, such as those who commit minor crimes are are thus more easily rehabilitated.

So, basically, we have two choices: lock him up in prison for the rest of his life, or execute him.

In this case, I am okay with the death penalty. Earlier in the thread, someone said “I think [the death penalty] is too quick of a punishment. Life in prison is much worse.” It is on this basis that I prefer the death penalty. We are absolutely confident that the person is guilty, so why bother drawing out the punishment? Otherwise, we are just keeping him alive for the sake of punishing him for a longer period of time. To me, keeping him alive for the sake of watching him suffer is simply another form of the “blood lust” that so many people talk about.

As far as I can tell, the prison system has three possible goals:
1) Rehabilitate the criminal so that he does not commit more crimes
2) Serve as a deterrent to prevent other people from committing crimes
3) Isolate the criminals as to protect society

With cases of extremism, objectives one and two will not be accomplished in any sort of efficient or reliable way. Both the death penalty and lifetime imprisonment will meet objective three. If there is overwhelming, non-circumstantial evidence of guilt, then the death penalty is swifter, and possibly even more humane.

@Blackberry @Dominicx @Cprevite Is it really worth tax money to keep this man alive and cared for in prison just to see him suffer though? I think I agree with @PhiNotPi‘s reasoning that imprisoning someone should be for rehabilitation, not “blood lust”.

I oppose the death penalty on similar grounds to josie, and it seems that you’re more likely to recieve it if you’re poor, generally disliked or a minority rather than the strength of the evidence against you. Yes, I could never trust such a fallible system made up of fallible people to make a decision of that magnitude of who deserves to be wiped out, and who doesn’t. However, unlike the OP I also oppose the death penalty on moral grounds and for spiritual reasons. I’ll answer this question with a resounding ‘no’ here as I would oppose the death penalty for any convicted murderer, terrorist, etc.

No. I am opposed to the death penalty for a variety of reasons, including the problem inherent in allowing a state to execute the citizens it is supposed to protect. Moreover, I see no reason to consider Tsarnaev a special case. I therefore have no reason to suspend my opposition.

@flutherother Human opinion is not limited to the binaries of “completely for” and “completely against.” Given that people can be for or against something with reservations, it is not unreasonable to ask if this is one of those cases where those reservations—should one have them—create an exception to the general rule.

@dxs It costs more tax money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life.

Life in prison is still the death penalty: “death by God.” Someone sentenced to life is guaranteed to die in state custody.

I am in favor of the death penalty now. DNA proves guilt whereas before DNA it was more of a guessing game. I can understand a moral aversion to the death penalty but I have never understood the reason for opposing being “it is not a deterrent.” I am more interested in protecting the rest of people who live here than whether it is a deterrent or not. Besides that, is letting a criminal off, supposedly rehabilitating them or whatever alternative there is to the death penalty, a deterrent?? Now someone always brings up that it costs more to execute than life in prison and I would say, there is something wrong with the system then. Appeals should not go on forever, how many times and by how many people should one be found guilty before we believe it?

@rooeytoo “Appeals should not go on forever, how many times and by how many people should one be found guilty before we believe it?”

Would you feel that way if you or someone you loved were among the 18 wrongfully convicted people on death row, whose convictions were overturned by the innocence project? The death penalty is a permanent and irreversible punishment, so having a system that gets it right is pretty fucking important.

The argument that it’s not a deterrent is itself a rebuttal to the pro-capital punishment position which frequently claims that the death penalty is a deterrent (which has been well studied and proven false). So you’re countering the rebuttal, by arguing the original pro-death penalty argument is irrelevant?

This writer shared my answer to your question.
I Can’t Hate You

@gorillapaws – I said NOW, dna can prove guilt or innocence. Yep I would be pretty upset if anyone I knew had been in that 18, but if there is irrefutable evidence/proof, that’s a different story.

I guess I don’t care if the death penalty is a deterrent, it eliminates one criminal so it is a deterrent for that one. And as I said not having the death penalty is not working particularly well as a deterrent either.

@SavoirFaire If you are in favour of the death penalty in certain circumstances then you are in favour of the death penalty. People can of course dispute the circumstances.

I am opposed to the death penalty because it is completely wrong for a country to kill their own citizens. It is not up to human beings to decide whether or not another human being should live or die. What kinds of signals does a state send to its citizens when they use the death penalty – that it is okay to kill if you do it in the name of the law? I don’t get it. Killing is wrong.
I don’t know how USA can still have the death penalty and I hope USA will be ready to join the rest of the Western world into the 21st century soon.
It is true that an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

Absolutely not. I am against the death penalty in all cases. It’s immoral, hypocritical and it costs more than life in prison does.

Addressing @PhiNotPi‘s point about life in prison being more awful than a swift death, I must agree. However, to me, the answer is to reform prisons, not to put people to death. Imprisonment shouldn’t be about punishment per se. The point of prison should be about protecting society and, when possible, reforming criminals. It need not be tortuous.

NOTE: I am not saying I think prison should be a walk in the park. Just that it doesn’t need to be as awful as it is.

[post deleted by poster]

@flutherother You are making the unfortunately common error of confusing generalities and absolutes. Human opinion is subtle and nuanced. Being “mostly against the death penalty with some exceptions” is not “being for the death penalty” without qualification. It is being for it in some circumstances. Thus a person who is generally opposed to the death penalty can be indifferent to or reluctantly for it in certain situations. That’s why it is unreasonable to be so platitudinous about these things. Saying that one must either be for or against the death penalty obscures the range of possible opinions. Even if you can gerrymander your definitions so as to make it true, it is still unhelpful as far as the conversation is concerned.

I am opposed to the death penalty.

I think a life sentence is a more severe form of punishment. People who are executed are relieved from their pain of being locked up for the rest of their lives. This why some chose suicide.

I expect that the American authorities will make a deal with Dzhokar Tsarnaev:

Tell us everything about what you and your brother made you commit this terrorist act. Tell us all about your brother. How did your brother influence you? Which people did he meet? Where? What about other plans? Etc. Etc.

In exchange he will get 30 years in prison and he can look forward to a life outside prison when he is 49 years old.

If Dzhokar Tsarnaev refuses to cooperate, he should stay in prison until death.

@mattbrowne, this is America. We tend to hold a grudge. He will never see freedom again. I’d bet you a dollar.

@Judi – Americans are also known for making deals. This guy is no Osama Bin Laden. He is an immature follower. It all depends on what kind of knowledge he can offer.

@mattbrowne, I hope you’re right, but where I stand the quest for revenge just seems to pervasive. There would be riots in the street if he got anything less than life in prison I’m afraid.

@Judi – Perhaps it’s best to make a quite deal. Information for a life sentence that gets changed later when things cool down.

@mattbrowne @Judi

I usually don’t like to get involved in “conversations” on threads. Not because there is anything wrong with it, but because I simply don’t enjoy doing it. Having said that…

I am fairly certain the Feds regard a living Jihadist operative in custody as nothing less than a potential gold mine of helpful information. And I am more than certain that they will bargain away a death sentence in exchange for usable intelligence.

And I am also fairly certain that enlightened Americans know that, and that they will not riot in the streets if he winds up being locked up instead of killed. And what is more, I do not think there would be riots in any case. There might be people carrying signs, but I bet against the riot scenario.

@josie – I bet against the riot scenario too.

I think they would riot in the streets of he were (potentially) released in 30 years. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. A life prison term would be sour to some but accepted by most.

I agree with @Judi. Americans will accept life in prison, but not a 30 year sentence.

@augustlan
@Judi
And so if that is not what happens, what is it you imagine Americans will do about it?

Riot. A short-lived riot, but I do see it happening.

@augustlan

The Riot Hypothesis.
Based on what?

@josie Based on our history.

@augustlan All right then. Since you are including Lane Kiffin/Tennessee and OSU vs Michigan, I’ll concede.