I am all for debates. I feel that every side of an issue needs to be explored to properly assess its multifaceted nature, and I find that, usually, there are valid points made on either side of an argument.

However, recently, there has been a debate broadcast heavily by the media that should have never happened.  This debate was the decision of whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the second suspect of the Boston Marathon bombing, should be read his Miranda rights.

I found this ridiculous because it was founded on a logic fallacy that our government can make executive (legal) decisions in an arbitrary manner. Spoiler alert: they can’t.

Carrying things out in such an arbitrary manner raises so many ethical questions that you’re, more or less, causing the system to cave in on itself. This being the case, we definitely need specific laws and regulations to govern our executive actions.

Also not reading him his rights is, in a way, similar to what he did when he decided to drop off a backpack carrying a bomb in a crowd of people. In both of these situations, people are devaluing humanity.

Obviously, what he did was more violent and permanent and twisted, but I think that the basic principle is the same. If you value human life, you won’t take part in a bombing. Likewise, if you value human life, you will exhibit fairness and take the proper legal action of reading the rights that are guaranteed to him as an American citizen.

So, isn’t it a little ironic that people were up-in-arms about the loss of human life but, as soon as they found out who was being considered as one of the likely suspects responsible, they wanted this person to be dehumanized and “fried”?

If this is the action we desire to take, how much better are we than him, from a moral stance?