Opponents of the death penalty argue that executing Tsarnaev will not bring closure to Boston or in any way repair the wounds inflicted by Tsarnaev or his brother Tamerlan who was killed while trying to evade capture. Also part of the argument is that the case is going to be tried in Massachusetts, a state which rid itself of the death penalty in 1982, and according to a Boston Globe survey, 57 percent of Bostonians are against putting Tsarnaev to death. From a legal standpoint however, this does not matter as the crime is considered a "federal crime" meaning the federal government and its laws supersede that of the state.
Cases like this often test one's conviction with regards to morals and beliefs. If one is against the death penalty, then he is against it even for the most heinous criminals; likewise if one feels that the Constitution of the United States is sacrosanct and applied equally to all citizens, then he must support Tsarnaev getting a fair trial, with a government provided lawyer, and the right to a strong defense... after all Tsarnaev is an American citizen.
Where do you stand on this case? Or on the death penalty in general?