First of all, in order to define the expediency of the death penalty in particular cases, it is necessary to understand what kind of crimes justifies the offender’s murder. From a personal perspective, a person’s life should be given if another life was taken by him – in other words, the death penalty may be applied only in the case of murder. That is why for the sexual assault of a minor, a long-term prison sentence, penalty charge, and chemical castration will be appropriate.
In turn, in order to define whether individuals who kill public figures or police officers deserve the death penalty, it is essential to address the law that regulates punishment for murder. I do not think that this crime should unquestionably imply the death penalty, as all circumstances of the case should be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the position of victims should not impact the court’s decisions – all lives are valuable regardless of people’s occupation and socioeconomic status.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case
The jury sentenced Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death for planning and executing a terrorist attack. In 2013, the explosion of his bomb during the Boston Marathon resulted in the killing of four people and injuring more than 260 other citizens (ABC News, n.d.). The jury found that Tsarnaev was guilty of all 30 charges against him (ABC News, n.d.). From a personal perspective, this decision is fair: first of all, terrorists who want and plan to kill as many people as possible do not deserve mercy. In addition, according to multiple pieces of evidence, Tsarnaev has deliberately chosen the place to target children. Moreover, neither after his act of violence nor later during incarceration did he show any sign of remorse. It goes without saying that he could spend all his life in prison. However, taking into consideration the opinions of victims’ families and this sentence’s cost-inefficiency, the death penalty is the most appropriate variant.
ABC News. (n.d.). Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to death [Video]. Web.