It was a horrendous attack. Two bombs left in backpacks near the finish line of the Boston Marathon exploded last April 15, killing three people and injuring an astounding 264 others.

But should our emotional response to that act of terrorism blind us to the appropriateness of the criminal penalty to be sought? No.

The Justice Department filed papers Thursday in federal court in Boston saying that it intends to seek the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother of the pair suspected of planting the bombs.

The filing cites Tsarnaev’s alleged use of a weapon of mass destruction and his “reckless disregard for human life,” as well as the premeditation of the act. The papers also mention Tsarnaev’s alleged betrayal of the country that granted him citizenship and his lack of remorse.

Given the magnitude of the crime, it is understandable that the victims – from the families of those killed and maimed, to the city of Boston, to, by extension, the nation – feel the urge for revenge.

That tumbling to the emotion of the moment, though, points up one of the primary roles of the judicial system: to act as a buffer between victims’ justifiable thirst for vengeance and the greater good of society. In our view, it is not the rightful responsibility of the state to act as executioner of its own citizens.

That’s not to say convicted murderers and other perpetrators of egregious crimes shouldn’t face severe punishment. Life without parole is the correct response in these extreme cases. It punishes the criminal while protecting society from future acts of violence.

As a nation that believes in justice, we should drop our embrace of the death penalty as a relic of the barbaric past.

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.