9 Answers

  1. To begin with, the question is formulated incorrectly. There are awards that are worthy. It would be more correct to ask: “Does Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserve the death penalty?”

    In the answer to this question, you can define two facets: legal and emotional. The city of Boston, where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is accused of committing a terrorist attack, is the capital of the state of Massachusetts, where the death penalty was abolished back in 1984. However, the case against the Tsarnaev brothers was considered at the federal level and a jury found Dzhokhar guilty on all 30 counts.

    From an emotional point of view. whether Tsarnaev's death will restore the lives of the three victims of the Boston bombing (including an eight-year-old boy) and compensate for the suffering of the injured children, everyone is free to decide for themselves.

  2. For this young and healthy guy, the death penalty is an act of humanity. Many decades in prison without any hope of freedom – the alternative is much worse.

  3. The death penalty is murder, no one has the right to decide whether a person should live or not. But a few hundred years of solitary confinement with no chance of ever being released is the punishment that a person who has committed such a cruel crime deserves.

    Given Tsarnaev's motivation and worldview, the death penalty is not a punishment for him, but a direct path to all the pleasures of paradise. He will become a martyred martyr and a hero to other followers of Islamism.

  4. The death penalty in the 21st century, in my opinion, is a relic of the past. When they talk about it in the context of, for example, third world countries, it can be called the general backwardness of a particular state (oh, they have a nightmare in all spheres of life there). The death penalty in the United States is already utter stupidity, which there is nothing to justify. The country where the UN headquarters is located still kills people in prisons, officially.

    Life imprisonment without the right to parole is the best punishment for such criminals.

  5. No one has the right to take someone else's life. Only God. He gave it, and He will take it back when the time comes. Tsarnaev doesn't deserve to live among people, but you don't just have to kill him.

  6. No. The death penalty is unacceptable because an innocent person can be executed. Yes, yes! History knows many cases when a person whom the investigation was convenient to consider guilty, who “confessed” to committing a crime himself, did not actually commit it! That is why-not the death penalty, but life imprisonment!

  7. Nothing is more senseless than murder. No one deserves to be killed. The death penalty is a replication of evil that has already occurred, a primitive revenge of society on the individual. The death of a criminal will not bring back the dead, will not put hands on the maimed, but will only bring new pain to this world.

  8. The task of the penitentiary system, as the name implies (poenitentia — repentance), is not to punish, but to promote the correction of the criminal. Protect society not only by isolating dangerous elements from it, but also by creating conditions for the normal return of these people to society after serving their sentences. Unfortunately, in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a correction is hardly possible. He did not repent, did not realize the full horror of what he had done. And does not realize and in 40 years, and in 140, most likely. Even if he received a life sentence, he would still die a martyr-incarceration in an American prison after killing infidels is quite similar to martyrdom in the name of Allah (this may not be true in theory, but there are plenty of people in Israel who come out of prison as heroes, so in fact-very much so). And in this case, when any term will not bring actual benefits, it would be more rational to execute Tsarnaev – it's just cheaper. But that won't stop the idea that landed Tsarnaev in the dock. To kill such boys without solving problems with the ideologues of jihad, and therefore implying and almost provoking new terrorist attacks and new executions-this is criminal.

    Is it fair to execute Tsarnaev? Is the death penalty even fair? By saving one life, you save humanity. I think that if you take one life, you take it away from humanity. In any case, we are responsible for what we will become, what our descendants will become, and if we kill murderers, and if we don't. Is there a difference between how Tsarnaev killed and how we kill him?

  9. Tsarnaev was tried under federal law – the state court, which abolished the death penalty three decades ago, handed down, by American standards, the most severe sentence. The accusation is enough: since 9/11/2001, this terrorist attack – the largest in the United States, carried out on the basis of Islamic extremism, somewhere subconsciously Americans have this idea.

    Only by their decision, they turned Dzhokhar into a shahid, who will be waiting for the Guria exactly as long as he will spend in prison, waiting for the execution of the sentence. Given the fact that he was motivated to kill civilians, such a fate does not frighten him, but rather, on the contrary, should please him.

    In this situation, the most advantageous would be a life sentence: his “heroic” act would be forgotten in 40 years, if only he did not repeat the fate of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Now the fact that the “warrior of Islam” is languishing in prison awaiting death will be talked about until he is executed.

    Opinion: a decision was made that was expected by Americans who believe that the death penalty is the highest measure of punishment, but not deliverance. This is incorrect, and it should be planted for 3-4 centuries. By the way, if you haven't seen it, the camera looks like this twimg.com Compared to living there, death will be a blessing for Tsarnaev

Leave a Reply

Categories