The real question is whether killing people is fundamentally wrong, or whether it is only wrong in a given set of circumstances. Most would agree that intentionally killing someone in cold blood for personal satisfaction is wrong. We might agree that killing 10 people in order to save 5 people is also wrong. We may differ on whether killing 1 innocent person to save 1000 others is wrong.
             Intentionally killing other people is always wrong no matter what. If there is a grey area between morally wrong killing and morally right killing, then where do we draw the line? More importantly, who has the right to draws that line? "A total of 904 executions have been carried out in the United States since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated after the Supreme Court banned it four years before" (pg 1). This is a staggering figure and does not show that things are going to slow down. The use as a deterrent is not working.
             The point of capital punishment is to kill the people who kill people to show other people that killing people is wrong. But if killing people is wrong, then why is it considered that the State is right to kill people? Capital punishment therefore sends a clear message that killing people is perfectly acceptable and is actively endorsed by the State.
             A "study following 25 condemned men ended after 12 of them had been executed, and the other 13 had been exonerated of their crimes after new evidence was produced." Pg 47. We really do not know how many people are on death row for false charges or for the police trying to seek their own justice. Once you execute a prisoner it is forever, you will not be able to bring them back. Even if new evidence is found the damage has already been done.
             Contrary to public opinion, it is actually a more expensive process than life imprisonment. With all the appeals, proceedings and hearings that occur for people on deat
             ...