Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be put to death for the Boston Massacre?

[© tweed]

He wants to be a martyr, so no, let him rot.

if that were true, why did he allow a Western, anti-death penalty legal all-star team to represent him?  he clearly prefers to continue to live.

[© tweed]

^ which is utterly bizarre, given "to live" entails 23 hrs a day of solitary confinement at ADX Florence for 60+ years

He can still fap.

and hopefully read, receive and respond to mail, etc.  though many prisons do their best to crack down on even that simple stuff.

if I had the ability to write, a source of books (5-7 per week), paper to write plenty on, and access to a coin to decide simple probabilities I *might* be able to remain sane (or, sane enough not to have a psychotic break) for a long while, especially if I could correspond with professors, specialists, etc.  I'd try to write books, fiction and non fiction.

they might not allow all that, citing national security concerns... I'd take the safe route and die.  whatever happens, may Dzhokhar have minimal suffering and find peace w/his God.

btw, what's this fake fcking scandal where Dzhokhar flipped the bird to his security camera?  wtf would you do if you were videotaped 24/7?  the prosecution is actually sick enough to jump on this?  before God, I'd stike a friendship with a contract killer before a prosecutor.

[© tweed]

Perhaps the only way to make the death penalty less subject to immediate cries for retribution is to require that those crimes eligible for the death penalty must be constitutionally defined. The constitution can still be amended, but it's a more onerous process that passage of a law.

what's wrong with the essentially common-law, judicial, case-by-case basis we have for this now?  at least in theory, the judiciary is more immune to public pressure than the legislature.  (I hope there are no instances where capital crimes are tried in courts where the judges are elected, but appeals from such cases are likely to be heard, I'd imagine)