A new poll from Rasmussen finds that 61% of likely voters favor the death penalty for the surviving Boston bombing suspect if he's convicted. The national telephone survey found that just 23% oppose the death penalty in this case, while 16% more are undecided.
To me, the death penalty is too simplistic a punishment for the type of person who drops a backpack loaded with explosives in the middle of a crowd of innocent people and then steps back a safe distance so he can watch the carnage unfold. For someone so cold, it seems like there ought to be a form of punishment worse than the death penalty.
Personally, I'm one of a handful of conservatives who oppose the death penalty -- not because I think the worst of the worst criminals don't deserve to die, but because I don't believe that's my call to make.
Instead, I think punishment should mirror the crime. For example: Instead of giving terrorists linked to 9/11 the death penalty, I think we should take them to the top floor of the tallest building in New York and set it on fire. That way, they get to make the same "choice" their victims did -- burn alive or jump to certain death.
That said, I think a more appropriate form of punishment for those responsible for the Boston attack would be to machete-off their legs at the knee and then make them run 26 miles. "Cruel and unusual" or just plain creative? You tell me.
What do you think: Should any alleged Boston terror suspects face the death penalty if convicted?