The jury in the trial of Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has handed down a sentence of death. I wasn’t surprised by the announcement of their decision yesterday. I have spoken with quite a few people who believe that the sentence is just and appropriate. I know these people are kind and compassionate and possess skills of good judgment. But I confess that I don’t understand the penalty or the arguments in favor of it.

Before I go any farther, let me be clear that I don’t want to criticize the jurors. I believe that they are solid citizens who gave the case their best judgment and who served in accordance with the law. I’m not trying to second guess the judge or the attorneys or anyone else involved in the process. I just see things from a different perspective.

One of the points make by the lead prosecutor is that the jury had the choice of imposing two sentences in the case. One option would be to impose life in prison without the possibility of parole. The other would be to impose death. He stated that of these options, life in prison was the minimum sentence allowed under the law. Surely the actions of the bomber warranted something more severe than the minimum sentence. It seems that the jurors agreed with his argument.

I’m not so sure. I am not convinced that allowing him to die at a young age is less severe than having him live with his crime for as long as possible. I’m not convinced that he doesn’t want to die and I see no argument for giving a terrorist what he wants. I have no reason to want to make a bomber into a martyr in the eyes of others who share the kind of twisted logic that produces innocent victims.

As I understand the federal death penalty, the means of execution in a federal case is the means employed by the state in which the conviction occurs. In the case that the state does not impose the death penalty, as with Massachusetts, the means is lethal injection since 1988. The sentence is likely to be carried out in a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. That won’t happen for many years. The circumstances of the sentencing have handed the defense team the argument for an appeal. The majority of the people of Massachusetts are opposed to the death penalty. A recent pole by WBUR radio shows 60% of the people living in Boston are opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Only people who disagree with the majority - those who are willing to consider the death penalty - were eligible to serve as jurors. The argument, whether or not you agree with it, is that there was no way to have a fair sentencing trial in Boston. The appeals will continue for a long time.

I’d rather not think about it.

I think of the family of 29 year old Krystie Campbell. Krystie went to the finish line to watch a friend compete in the race.

I think of the family of Chinese graduate student Lu Lingzi who was studying statistics at Boston University.

I think of the family of eight-year-old Martin Richard who were standing together cheering the runners when the bomb went off.

I think of the family of officer Sean Collier who was shot by the Tsarnaev brothers as they tried to avoid being arrested.

I think of those who received life-altering injuries in the blast.

Is their grief any less if Tsarnaev dies? Will their pain be decreased? Will we, as a society, feel any less fear and terror, knowing that we have the power to end the life of the bomber?

In my life, I have had one sister and one brother die. I think of my sister’s death. She died suddenly and traumatically when the bullet of a murderer tore through her body as she danced with her husband. The bullet that killed her sliced through him as well. He survived. She was dead before I knew that the shot had been fired. She was dead before her oldest graduated from high school. She never met any of her grandchildren.

I think of my brother’s death. A sudden heart attack killed him as he drove his van, recently loaded with newspapers to be delivered to paperboys in neighboring communities. They say he was dead before the van veered off the street, down an embankment and into the Missouri River. Earlier that day he had been talking with his daughter about her high school graduation. He didn’t make it to the ceremony. He never met his granddaughter.

Is one death somehow worse than the other? Is one somehow more tragic? It is possible that both could have been prevented, had we known they were coming. Would my grief be less if someone else were to die? Does the cruelty of a killer have the power to make me, as a citizen of the state, into an executioner?

I don’t know the answers. I just don’t think that dying is always a worse penalty than living. I don’t want to have our society forget Krystie Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Martin Richard or Sean Collier. I don’t want us to forget the pain and loss and grief their families feel. I don’t even want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be allowed to forget them. As twisted as his brain must be, as unfathomable as his logic is, we, as a society, should never allow him to forget that the victims of his actions were real people and that the pain and loss and grief of their families is real. And that we will never forget - and he shouldn’t be allowed to forget, either.

Stopping his heart and declaring him brain dead ends a memory, strange as that memory might be. It destroys evidence of how and why the crime was committed. That evidence may never provide answers. It may never show signs of remorse. Still I can find no peace in his execution.

There will be no closure. There will be no end to the pain that was caused. You don’t get over the loss of the ones you love. The families of the victims won’t get release. They have to live the rest of their lives. The sentence they received is cruel, regardless of what happens to the bomber.

I wrote this. If you want to copy it, please ask for permission. There is a contact me button at the bottom of this page. If you want to share my blog a friend, please direct your friend to my web site.