Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty

I shall not introduce any new information for my stance and will rebute the following points.1) "...and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."My point exactly. There is a choice of life or death and in this case specifically judging all the facts of the case and its mitigating factors the death oenalty should not be seeked in trial nor carried out in prison if found guilty2) "He killed three and severely injured 260 people;a noticeable number of those people lost their legs."As like your rebuttel to my fifth point, While it is an unlikely final verdict, Tsarnaev is still innocent until proven guilty. At the moment saying he killed/injured those people is untrue in the court of law therefore that argument is invalid.3) "When I got in trouble at school and my teachers punished me I always tried to say, "but my friend did it too!"Would this be the same story if your friend threatened your life forcing you to go along with his plan? I am not saying Dzhokhar was only sheep led by his brother. 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. 4) "Tamerlan did get punished. He was shot by police officers and got run over by his brother, resulting in death!"And left behind is a fatherless child, single widow mother, brother whose life could be at the mercy of the court, and parents who could lose another child just as the parents of 8 year old Martin Richard lost theirs. I do not feel bad for Dzhokhar however 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.5) "The movement would suffer if that happened because the public would not be happy with the outcome."Ah my point is this though, 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? There is no reason for it which is my point exactly. 6) "I think that pro's argument would more suit an argument against the death penalty in general instead of this special case."I am Con but to answer the statement I mentioned previously that this case specifically as well due to his young age, influence, previous clean record, issues with his rights, and the State not having the death penalty. I believe I touched upon those previously.7) "I would trust a jury determining weather Mr Tsarnaev would face the death penalty or not"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.8) "Mr Tsarnaev did many heinous crimes, and because of the number of crimes and their severity..."I'm sorry but whaaa? I don'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. To conclude my rubute I say ask yourself the question, "How can proceeding with the death penalty in this case benefit anybody efficiently?"