The Four Main Arguments Against Killing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Death-penalty opponents in this case fit into one of these four main categories.
About twice as many registered voters in Boston support sentencing Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to life in prison instead of the death penalty, according to a WBUR poll. But opponents of the death penalty in this case don’t all have the same reasoning.
Four distinct lines of argument have emerged for opponents of the death penalty for Tsarnaev: moral absolutism, the “put him away already’’ argument, the “easy way out’’ argument, and that Tamerlan was the mastermind of the attack.
The “Killing Is Wrong’’ Argument
It’s a fairly straightforward argument: Human life is sacred. If there is a way to protect society from bad people without killing them, then the government should not kill them. Therefore, state-sponsored killing is wrong.
This argument has been put forth by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts, including Cardinal Sean O’Malley, in a statement earlier this month:
The Church has taught that the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are “rare, if not practically nonexistent.’’ The Church’s teaching is further developing in recognition of the inherent dignity of all life as a gift from God. …
The defendant in this case has been neutralized and will never again have the ability to cause harm. Because of this, we, the Catholic Bishops of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, believe that society can do better than the death penalty.
A similar argument was also put forth by some protestors outside the courthouse on Tuesday, framed as a secular question. “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?’’
One protestor holds a sign outside the courthouse where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is on trial.
The “Just Put Him Away Already’’ Argument
This is essentially a practical argument, that a death penalty sentence will result in years of appeals and facetime for Tsarnaev. During that time, he might still be on TVs, newspapers, and websites. In contrast, a sentence of life without parole would put him away from the public and from the victims almost immediately.
Bill and Denise Richard, the parents of 8-year-old victim Martin Richard, made this argument in a statement to The Boston Globe:
We hope our two remaining children do not have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring. …
As long as the defendant is in the spotlight, we have no choice but to live a story told on his terms, not ours. The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our family.
The “Death Is the Easy Way Out’’ Argument
Lethal injection is too merciful for Tsarnaev, this argument goes. Instead, he deserves to suffer for a long time for the pain and death he caused. It’s an argument based largely on anger and a desire for vengeance.
The crux of this line of thinking largely relies on the miserable conditions at the federal supermax prison in Colorado, which houses notorious criminals like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and shoe bomber Richard Reid. Prisoners spend 23 hours a day in isolation in tiny rooms, and have extremely limited contact with any other humans for the rest of their lives. The former warden has described the supermax as a “clean version of hell.’’
You don’t have to look far for this argument, as it’s most often seen on Facebook or in online comments section, like this one:
The “His Brother Was Worse’’ Argument
This is the argument of Tsarnaev’s defense: He does not deserve the death penalty because he was 19 at the time, he used drugs, and he was under the thumb of his domineering older brother Tamerlan, who was killed during the shootout in Watertown.
During the trial, the defense showed evidence suggesting that Tamerlan alone bought the BBs, pressure cookers, radio transmitters, and backpacks used in the bombing. The defense has also argued that Tamerlan was the one who pulled the trigger and fatally shot MIT police officer Sean Collier.
Tsarnaev is guilty of the bombings, this argument goes, but he’s not culpable to the extent that he should be put to death.
The Boston Globe editorial board seems convinced of this argument. They wrote:
For jurors who believe execution should be reserved for the worst criminals, the lawyers laid out a clear path to conclude Dzhokhar wasn’t even the worst of the Tsarnaevs. …
Tsarnaev obviously should spend the rest of his life in prison. His defense has already made a good case that he does not meet the exceptionally high standards for a federal execution.
In the end, the jury doesn’t have to fully explain its reasoning for choosing the way it does. And it may just choose death.
The Alcatraz of the Rockies
[bdc-gallery id=”316893″]
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com