Our legal system has no right to say who should die and who should not. And even though some may feel that others should die due to their prior actions, they have no say. In Many states where capital punishment is imposed the guilty are waived and the innocent sit on death row. In the past years, many felons have been executed, but a number of those were innocent. Since 1977, there have been 67 executions that have proved after the fact that the innocent are killed. At the time the government felt they were doing the right thing, but later were held accountable. What makes a justified punishment? Is it that the accused is made aware of their unlawful doing, or is it that they don't know what they did and the only pain they feel is the stressed caused by watching their lives tick away? It is hard to say, I hope that if the death penalty still stays in effect then it will become more accurate at pinpointing the criminals. How much does it cost to house a prison member compared to the cost of trial after trial and to be put on death row? These all take into effect if the death penalty is morally and economically right.
             When is it right to kill as a punishment? As Nathanson (2) says in An Eye for An Eye?: The Immorality of Punishing by Death, Murder is wrong, the death penalty is murder, so then the death penalty is wrong.
             Now the government can commit legal murder, and we as citizens feel that it is ok for them to do that. It's the government, no one can stop them. Many supporters do have sympathy for the murder victims and those on death row. They just feel it is necessary to follow the "Eye for an eye" (Nathanson 73) routine.
             The guilty have no choice in the death penalty or a sentence for life. All cases are different. Different judges, different juries and different scenarios, create a chance for personal discretion against or for the accused. If all the
             ...