In modern times, are you required to exhaust all legal appeals before you're eligible for religious martyrdom?

Assuming your premise is true, then perhaps he’s not fighting his martyrdom. Perhaps he’s hoping for a chance to kill more people. The word “martyr” comes from the Greek word for “witness.” In other words, acts of martyrdom are primarily attempts to witness (i.e., evangelize) to the watching world. A martyr is willing to die as part of an overt demonstration of faith, but would prefer to have more chances to carry out the will of God. The longer Tsarnaev lives, the more he can do what (he believes) God wants of him.

But I’m not convinced your premise is true. According to those who actually investigated the case, Dzhokhar was never as radical as his brother Tamerlan. So while Dzhokhar may take comfort in his belief that his brother is enjoying a blessed afterlife, that does not mean that he wants to join him any time soon. Since Dzhokhar has never expressed a personal desire to by a martyr, it should not be surprising that he is fighting his sentence.

Maybe it is me being naive – but I always thought that (historically) martyrdom was a condition that others ascribed to you – in other words, after the fact and after you were dead.

This Islamic idea of dying to become a martyr just seems convoluted and silly.

Your satirical perspective skews the matter. The truth is that Tsarnaev isn’t “fighting” anything, or to be more accurate, his defense would be just as vigorous and well argued were he In a coma. When it comes to the “BIG ” (sensational) crimes, the legal system creaks toward working as we are told it does. This is critical to sustaining the illusion that we are all entitled to and will therefore receive a fair trial.

Great perspective, @JeSuisRickSpringfield. Personally I accept the ‘additional chances to witness’ concept more, but I appreciate the insight of both answers.

I have a hard time getting my mind around it, too, @elbanditoroso.

Not true, @stanleybmanly. The defendant has to enter a plea for a trial to begin – guilty or not guilty.

And if the defendant refuses to enter a plea, one is entered for him. My point is that Tsarnaev does little or nothing. It is his legal team that does everything (including entering the plea). And unlike you or I when faced with a “routine” murder charge, the chances of shoddy or incompetent work on the part of his lawyer is remote, and again unlike you or I, in the event of shortcomings on the part of the defense(or for that matter, the state) they will be speedily noted and corrected.

Yup, @stanleybmanly brings up an important point: the legal system is automated in a way that doesn’t give defendants as many choices as we sometimes think. In the United States, all death sentences are subject to an automatic appeal. So Tsarnaev doesn’t really have a choice about whether or not his lawyer will argue against the verdict and his resulting sentence.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield (and I thought MY handle was a mouthful). BINGO!

I wasn’t the first to wonder:
If he pleads guilty, he has no leverage any more. This way, he has nothing to lose. If you plead guilty, then you’re just guilty

He entered the pleas personally, they were not entered on his behalf.

@ibstubro thanks for the great links! I stand corrected.