In order to securely submit someone to a death penalty, it must be known that it would be better for society as a whole if the person in question was dead rather than alive. This creates a sticky concept of balancing morals. If a man plans on killing one who would use his life to create genocide, is it truly murder? One could argue that it is in fact more noble than if he had not killed the man. At the same time, if a soldier is sent overseas and shoots into a house which is believed to contain enemies of the state, and it instead has innocent civilians, is the soldier doing his duty with an unintended mistake, or is it the slaughtering of innocence? One could easily argue that such soldiers are not heroes and need to come to justice. The point I'm trying to get across here is that there is no absolute when it comes to death and murder. As sad as a fact as it is, killing some people are more socially acceptable than it is to kill others. Point and case; if a man were to serve in the military and go overseas and take out many people, some enemies and some innocent, he may very well return home to a hero's welcome despite the fact that he did kill people, even if for a cause being pushed for by the government. If one were to kill a community hero, such as the former war hero, and the culprit were to be found and determined guilty to the degree in which it were fact, the community would be calling for his head. I'm not here to say that either man was right to kill, or that either man was wrong to kill. I'm saying that it would inherently be wrong to subject one to capital punishment and not the other.