The risk of executing innocent people is a crucial objection to the institution of capital punishment in the United States. Consequentialist arguments for the death penalty are, at best, inconclusive; the strongest justification is the retributive one. However, this argument is seriously undermined if there is a significant risk of executing an innocent person. Any criminal justice system carries the risk of punishing innocent people, but the death penalty is unique and requires greater precautions. The retributive justifications for the death penalty are based on respect for innocent victims of murder; but accepting serious risks of erroneous executions demonstrates disrespect for innocent human life. The US Supreme Court decisions of the 1990s (Coleman v. Thompson and Herrara v. Collins) illustrate the existence of a serious risk and suggest some explanations for it. I live in a city (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) whose district attorney seeks the death penalty. often, and more successfully, than any other district attorney in the United States. In Philadelphia, as elsewhere in the United States, the majority of defendants in capital trials are poor and rely on court-appointed defense attorneys paid by the local jurisdiction. It's no coincidence that a city that sends large numbers of convicted murderers to death row has "an unusually impoverished system" for representing indigent defendants. According to Tina Rosenberg, where private attorneys “normally” ask $50,000 to defend a capital case, Philadelphia pays court-appointed attorneys a flat fee of $1,700 for preparation and $400 for each day in court. The executive administrator of Philadelphia's courts estimates the average is $3,519 per case. (1) These numbers help explain why District Attorney Lynn Abraham's department has such a high percentage of murder defendants sentenced to death. They also suggest that Philadelphia is at particularly high risk of sending to death row some people who are innocent of the crime of which they were convicted. But why does Philadelphia seek the death penalty so often – in Rosenberg's words, "virtually as often as the law will allow"? (320) District Attorney Abraham states that he sees himself as representing the victim and his family and that the death penalty is the right thing to do for them. (321) This is essentially a retributive logic for capital punishment. The risk of executing innocent human beings is at the heart of this document. I believe this risk is so significant that it constitutes a decisive reason for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States.