On Marathon Monday, the entire country was brought to a standstill when bombs exploded at the finish line of the race in Boston; four people were killed, and hundreds were injured.  Two terrorists made bombs with pressure cookers filled with nails and Beebees and when the bombs went off these metal fragments flew through the air and became lodged in peoples’ legs and limbs. Pictures show Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the suspected bombers, placing the explosive next to Martin Richard , the eight year old boy was killed in the attack.  Shortly after the bombing, the FBI recruited the help of the public to identify the two suspects, and within hours they were identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, and, older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26. Tamerlan was killed in a gun battle with police the next morning, and Dzhokhar was captured by police after an all-day manhunt. Dzhokhar is accused of numerous charges including the use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death.

After witnessing the horrific scenes of the bombing, many Americans are calling for justice for this monster. Many feel that the only punishment that fits his inhumane crimes is the death penalty.  However, that assumption is hypocritical.

The death penalty has been a controversial issue for years in Massachusetts.  Capital punishment use dates back to our first settlers, and it was last used in 1947; however, it was outlawed by voters on a statewide ballet in November 2, 1982.

In the larger New England region the death penalty has been used in certain crimes, including the 2007 Connecticut case involving the Peteit family who were sexually assaulted and then burned alive in their beds by Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven J. Hayes — two robbers looking for money to buy drugs. Komisarievshy was sentenced to death but has not been killed because of the slow appeal process.  The most recent execution in New England was in May of 2005 when Michael Ross — convicted of countless murders and rapes— was the first person to be put to death in New England in forty-five years.  Nationally, this year ten people have been executed via the death penalty.

Some people feel that the death penalty should be legal because it will deter others from committing crimes. These people also cite that the death penalty provides closure to the families of the victims. Often, after a person commits  a truly horrific crime, the only punishment that seems just is execution. Sometimes the death penalty might be necessary because it would prevent the criminal from having a chance to escape and hurt society again. Hence, proper procedures are carried out before execution as that becomes a matter of life and death. There are many agencies like allnightattorney.com, amongst many others, who are involved in the investigations of felons and perpetrators. These are all logical arguments for the death penalty.

However, although killing a criminal seems like a fair solution, it is not beneficial for our society in the long run. The death penalty could be a good deterrent, but with endless appeals and court proceedings, the criminal is not executed until years after the crime has been committed. By that time, the crime and punishment are not connected in the minds of would-be lawbreakers or the general public.  While some victims’ families will certainly monitor the progress of their appeals and some ultimately will ultimately attend the execution when it occurs, who actually remembers when the government killed Michael Ross?  Too often, the delay of executions undermines the message it’s supposed to send to the public.

As the death penalty is administered today, appeals and endless hearings cause the court system to clog up and capital cases are more financially expensive to taxpayers than a having the criminal spend a life in jail. On balancedpolitics.com, Joe Messerli states that “Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life”(http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm).

The death penalty makes our country look callous to other countries and it sends a contradictory message: the government kills people who have killed other people to show that killing is wrong.  This backwards logic is just bad teaching.  Just as alcoholic parents are not the best teachers of tolerance, vengeful legislative verdicts do not instruct forgiveness.

In the case of the Boston Bomber many people absolutely believe that he will get the death penalty. However, he should be locked up in jail for life instead. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wants to die. The police found him with a gunshot wound in his throat which they think was a attempt of suicide.  For this nineteen year old boy a life sentence in prison is much better form of punishment. If he is stuck in jail for the rest of his life, then he is forced to spend the rest of his life dealing with the shame and guilt of his actions. If he is killed then he would escape this guilt.

In another high profile case recently, Jodi Arias was convicted of first degree murder for slaying her boyfriend. Her punishment is either a life sentence or the death penalty. Arias herself said, “I’d rather get death than life […] I believe death is the ultimate freedom, so I’d rather just have my freedom as soon as I can get it.” As previously mentioned, the murderers of the Peteit family also said that they too wanted death rather than jail.

Murders like Arias and Tsarnaev don’t deserve ultimate freedom — they deserve to be locked up in prison and to suffer a lifetime of humiliation, shame, and with time, potentially remorse.

If killing is wrong, it should be wrong for all people — murderers and governments. Why should these murderers get the option of never having to live with the guilt of their crimes? Other states should adopt Massachusetts law and not allow the death penalty and this inhumane form of punishment.