Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty

I will close out my debate with the following points. 1) If they were unbiased and forgiving why wouldn't you trust them? Sorry it was a small typo I meant to say they wouldn't be unbiased and forgiving. Therefore I would not trust them. 2) "We are arguing if he should be tried in a death penalty case not if he is innocent or not." Okay ok we both seemed to have flustered our points here. You negated my point in your first debate and I negated one in yours since both had to do with pre trial convictions so we'll just throw out both of those arguments. 3) "Therefore, he must have been on board with it and he should receive the consequences of his own actions." Yes he is responsible for his own actions that is true. I am asking that you see the circumstances he was under and under that stress people make rash decisions and sometimes those decisions could be made with better judgement. Now that he made his decision if convicted I ask they give life in prison over the death penalty. There is no reason to give him death over life in prison. Life in prison would be receiving consequences for his actions by law. 4) "Maybe it wouldn't bring justice, but it would bring emotional closure to the country as a whole." I strongly disagree with that statement. Even if convicted to death he is not executed for 10+ years. By that time people will forget about him. Him being sentenced to life would be closure enough to the victims. I don't know if you've seen the film Dead Man Walking but it's about a man on death row who murdered a young couple. True story. The parents of the victims want vengeance and want his blood spilled so to speak. At the execution day both families attend and see the man executed in front of them. They are scared and horrified at what occurs. They later attend the funeral to give condolence to his family. Sure it's an adaptation but a true story none the less showing victims seeking closure and it not being what they expect. 5) "Even in prison Mr. Tsarnaev may still pose a threat to the U.S." How? He had no affiliation to any other terrorist group. The rest of his family is not terrorist related so they would not pose a threat. Charles Manson had a whole cult following him and once he was incarcerated no other victims were affected. 6) "That contradicts your first argument where you argue that death penalty cases cost too much" When did I say anything that contradicts it costing too much? To be clear I only approve of the death penalty in extreme cases where the nation's security is at stake. Tsarnaev is no longer a threat to the US. My point is public opinion on this case is to kill him. Doing the opposite will help eliminate unnecessary death penalties such as this case. 7) "Just because he is not being charged with the crimes doesn't mean he did not commit the crimes." Well just because he was charged with 2 crimes doesn't mean he committed them. By definition A crime, is an act harmful not only to some individual, but also to the community or the state (a public wrong). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. Therefore he is charged with only the two crimes meaning at most he committed two crimes at most. 8) "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." Well the point of the debate is to defend my arguments and rebute against you say against what I say confusing I know. As far as me "not defending my point" how many times have I mentioned his young age, clean record, mitigating factors, etc. I defended him specifically multiple times. 9) "Why change the law or do anything because of one case." There have been countless cases that have changed US law completely! That's aside the point though. I am not saying oh instead of x years in prison or death set him free! I am saying choose more reasonable choice. To conclude Vote Con and spare an unneeded death saving money, a life, and still providing justice.