Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty

1) If there is a decision of life or death I would trust a jury that is unbiased and fair at your last argument you said, "If the case is tried in Massachusetts I absolutely would not trust a jury of peers with his life. I'm no psychologist but I'd bet money that the jury from that state would be unbiased and forgiving." That statement contradicts itself. If they were unbiased and forgiving why wouldn't you trust them? 2) For your rebuttal to my second argument does it really matter? We are arguing if he should be tried in a death penalty case not if he is innocent or not. My point was if he was convicted his conviction should be severe and it should include, if the jury shall choose, the death penalty. 3) You said that, "I am rather arguing his brother had a history of violence and Dzhokhar i doubt wanted to oppose his brother who has such radical beliefs." That is Dzhokhar's own fault. When it comes to a persons actions, it is that person who makes up their own minds and tells themselves what to do. If Dzhokhar was not on board with this he could have told law enforcement, he would have saved many lives, but he did not. Therefore, he must have been on board with it and he should receive the consequences of his own actions. 4) You say that, "I believe that wasting millions of dollars on a death penalty case will not bring any more justice to the victims than life in prison would. The only difference is adding one more person to the death toll." Maybe it wouldn't bring justice, but it would bring emotional closure to the country as a whole. Did you see the celebrations when Osama Bin Ladin died (yes I will compare them they were both terrorists)? The country was so happy to have gotten rid of him. Even in prison Mr. Tsarnaev may still pose a threat to the U.S. 5) Once again you say that " Many of the people believe he should face death and if arguably one of the most deserving of the death penalty does not recieve it then who does? Who deserves it then? Nobody that's who and why have a process that doesn't favor public opinion? That statement seems like it wants to go somewhere else. You argue that there is no reason for having a death penalty case. That contradicts your first argument where you argue that death penalty cases cost too much. 6) You say that, "on't want to keep pulling the innocent card because it's true I don't believe he is fully innocent either however MANY heinous crimes? Last time I looked he has only been charged with 2 crimes and has not been proven guilty by either so to say he has committed many heinous crimes is a false statement." The two crimes he is charged with are federal charges. If the state was prosecuting this case instead of the federal government he could be charged with four counts of murder and 260 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon." Just because he is not being charged with the crimes doesn't mean he did not commit the crimes. 7) Con's rebuttal is fragile and not very clear. He does not make any more arguments why Mr Tsarnaev should live but instead he wants to answer my points instead of picturing the big idea. The big idea is, Mr Tsarnaev is being charged with using WMDs and the law states that he must be put in prison for x amount of years or put to death. (1) Why change the law or do anything because of one case. Like I said, con seems to be an advocate for the anti death penalty movement, but he has picked the wrong criminal to argue in favor for. (1) http://www.law.cornell.edu...