Should murderers and rapists be given the death penalty? Should you kill someone because they killed another? Whether you are for or against capital punishment, we all agree that those who commit crimes should be punished. Choosing a side in favor of capital punishment is difficult because no two cases are the same. Convening someone for capital punishment would cost more than sending them to prison "An Ohio trial judge estimates that a death penalty trial will cost 3-4 times more than a life without parole trial." The study also shows that the costs of the death penalty are on average up to $10 million more per year per state than the costs of life imprisonment. Some of the factors that contribute to the real costs of using the death penalty are that capital cases are more complicated and require more experts than regular cases, and that both sides spend more on the investigative costs of a capital case. The use of capital punishment in states would also lead to an increase in people falsely accused of having been killed for something that never happened. In the state of Texas, Anthony Graves was convicted in 1994 of assisting Robert Carter in multiple murders in 1992. Having no physical evidence linking Graves to the crimes, his conviction was based on Carter's testimony that Graves was his accomplice, a statement which was later retracted. After the help of a “special prosecutor” to review the case, the media was told that “we have found no credible evidence linking Anthony Graves to the commission of this capital murder. He is an innocent man” Another case in Alabama in which Daniel Wade Moore was found guilty of murder and sexual assault of Karen Tipton in 2002, was sentenced to death by the judge overruling the jury's original consent. However he was acquitted in 2009 when 256 pages of hidden evidence were finally revealed. Having the ability of a judge to sentence someone to death is not always justifiable, being the fact that the case of Daniel Wade Moore was found guilty due to the fact that 256 pages of evidence were not in contempt at the time of trial, giving the possibility to judge to make a false accusation that could have ended up being a life that had done nothing wrong. Cases like Daniel Moore's give judges and jury the ability to make a charge based on evidence that isn't all there. Some cases that land on a judge's desk don't have all the evidence needed to argue that someone was killed for something that can't be 100% justified in court.