Igor Primoratz Death Penalty Analysis

Superior Essays
The death penalty is a controversial topic which receives a great deal of criticism from parties on both sides of the argument. Some suggest that it is morally sound on the basis of an eye-for-an-eye ideology, while others argue that its inherent hypocrisy makes the act illegitimate. By examining and analyzing Igor Primoratz’s A Life for a Life and its argument in support of the death penalty, I will attempt to both explain and discredit his argument on the grounds that murder ought not justify murder. Igor Primoratz’s central argument is that there is no equivalent punishment to murder, which is why in cases of murder, the death penalty is justified. Simply imprisoning someone who committed such a heinous crime as murder does not equate …show more content…
He does not respect the decisions of states in that regard, arguing that the death penalty ought to be a universally used punishment. He argues that this is true because murderers need to be punished for what they have done and the death penalty is the only way to adequately give them what they deserve. He argues that while some crimes receive a punishment equivalent to what they have done; petty theft and short-term imprisonment, for example, the top end of the spectrum when lacking the death penalty offers a disproportionately low punishment as compared to the rest of the punishments. That is to say, Primoratz argues, that murderers, relative to other criminals, receive less of a punishment which is not only less of a deterrent, but to some degree an active endorsement of the act as it is known that they will not receive an equally terrible punishment to the crime that they committed. It is morally illogical that murderers receive a lesser sentence than what they actually did when other crimes are not subject to the same …show more content…
For example, in exchange for murder, the criminal justice punishment could offer a life sentence in prison, or community service every day for life or whatever may be decided; but doesn’t need to be reciprocated with murder. Fellow philosopher of the morality of the death penalty Stephen Nathanson would agree with me due to his support of proportional retributivism rather than direct retributivism. This is additionally important and morally sound in that proportional retributivism would allow for different punishments within the framework of a crime; for example, not all murders are charged to the same degree, so rather than a death sentence for all murders, it would consider a lesser sentence for “lesser” murders. If Primoratz were to respond, I would expect him to suggest that, as he already noted, that leaves murder to be the only crime that does not have a sufficient punishment. While this is arguably true, this argument does not argue for the morality of the death penalty. The opposition to this argument is of course that while it may not be a duplicate of the crime, a relatively equivalent punishment is sufficient in both punishing the offender and deterring future criminal acts while concurrently advocating for the preservation of life and removes the contradictions inherent to

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The author’s point of this article was to give insight to the controversial view points on the death penalty, being in favor of those who deserve the capital punishment and opposed to those who do not deserve it, and argues that until the death penalty is not justified even without uncertainty to those that deserve it, and the moral deterrence is abolished from those that favor it, the argument against it will never…

    • 578 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this paper, I will discuss Nathansons argument against capital punishment. I will discuss how Nathanson has responses to Haags arguments with two cases. I argue that Haag has good responses but I would agree with Nathanson to say that one must treat everyone the same depending on their crimes without treating each criminal differently even though they have committed the same crime but are not getting the same punishment. Haag’s primary objection in capital punishment was that it does not matter if the death penalty is administered arbitrarily because individual punishments depend on individual quilt alone, and whether punishments are distributed equally among the class of guilty persons does not matter.…

    • 1008 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In What Do Murderers Deserve? David Gelernter explores the idea of the death penalty, and its acceptable uses. He does this by providing complex ideas, analogies, and examples, allowing his numerous evidence to actually prove his point. His writing style is eloquent and slightly inflammatory, as he tries to inspire support to an issue that is often pushed to the periphery of other discussions.…

    • 467 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The death penalty has caused tension between more than just those who enforce it and those who receive it. The shock waves caused by the death penalty can be found building tension within the conversations of those who may not have a true role in the process but who, in the eyes of the American democracy, have a voice on the matter. As an observer of the current and past status of the death penalty, one can form the opinion and understanding the necessity of capital punishment in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty has been apart of the court rulings since its reinstatement in 1988. Although those who are against the death penalty would argue that each one of these deaths were not necessary to the safety of our nation..…

    • 1818 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In most states, the imposition of the death penalty on certain; mostly murderous crimes is established in the perceptions of the cost of such crimes to the victims’ families and the social cost to the society. There even appears to be an economic inclination saliently factored into the justice of capital punishment by comparing the value of imprisonment cost as opposed to the cost of incarceration. There appears to be an automatic or reflexive behavior for a retributive justice towards violent crimes involving murder of a loved one. Even the most ardent opponents to the death penalty as in my case, I succumb to the default psychological judgment of wanting justice at all cost. The problem for me arises when there is not an absolute evidence of facts that links an accused person to such crimes, and even if there was one, the facts in this case can be subjective.…

    • 1733 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This argument states that justice for heinous crimes requires the death penalty and life without parole is simply not enough. This “need” and “deserving” attitude for retribution is often seen in the family of homicide victims. The most challenging part about this argument is the inability and impossibility to collect any time of supportive data. Yet, opposing such retribution is criminologist Marvin Wolfgang (1996) who states that we should not be asking the question “who deserves to die?” but “who deserves to kill (Radelet & Borg,…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In this chapter Stephen Nathanson discusses the symbolism of abolishing the death penalty, and claims that we express a respect for each person’s rights by refraining from depriving a murder of someone’s life. The death penalty has been an argument for decades now and still discussed if someone actually does deserve the death penalty. Stephen explains his view towards this claim, and identifies how this moral problem could be resolved. There are ways you could solve this problem but resolving claims in a certain way always have its’s cons as well. In my opinion a Subjectivism system could resolve the dilemma our society is having with the death penalty.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Proportional retributivism, as we discussed in class, requires that punishment must be proportional to crimes. Society is expected to give its most terrible crimes its most terrible punishments. Reiman believes that execution is extremely similar to torture. Killing defenseless human beings enacts the defeat of that person. Although execution may be physically painless, it causes an intense and severe psychological pain.…

    • 961 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Certainly, Reiman’s moderate theory of retribution provides a pathway to abolishing the death penalty because many individuals that are given the death penalty are victims of an aggressive and overly reactionary criminal justice system. This is one way to argue in favor of removing the death penalty through Reiman’s argument on reactionary cycle of a “eye for an eye” mentality, which creates extreme judgments that cannot be overturned if the individual is later found to be innocent. Reiman is aware of the long tradition of the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but he finds it impractical in terms of being an accurate judge of the intent and motives of the alleged…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Stephen Nathanson, who wrote “An eye for an eye?” suggests the factual and moral beliefs about the death penalty are wrong and need to be strictly abolished. The passage states, “ A person’s actions, it seems, provide not only a basis for a moral appraisal of the person but also a guide to how he should be treated”. Also stated, “ What people deserve as recipients of rewards or punishments is determined by what they do as agents”. The argument claiming people should get a punishment based on what they do is accurate. What is not accurate however, is suggesting if someone murders another person, they should receive capital punishment.…

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the article “Death Penalty: Inhumane or Necessary Deterrent?” written by Euan McKirdy, several concepts surrounding the death penalty are discussed. McKirdy is a Digital News Producer who joined CNN in early 2014 and covers everything from politics, tech and the environment to sport and the arts. Before McKirdy started writing for CNN he wrote for a different publications and websites including Time, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal and Monocle. Throughout the article, McKirdy displays information for both sides of the controversial argument. He writes: Advocates say it is a powerful deterrent against serious crime, while others point to the problems -- and cost -- of keeping violent offenders in general prison populations.…

    • 889 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The death penalty is the most severe form of current legal punishment. The question that is hotly debated is if this form of legal punishment is just and necessary. Hugo Bedau argues that capital punishment is not ethically acceptable. On the other hand, Ernest Van Den Haag argues that this penalty is completely necessary. This paper will summarize both opinions and give two reasons why the death penalty should be abolished, both from a ethical point of view and from a practical perspective.…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Death Penalty Texas

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Not all the cases with death sentences is right, “I don't want to put one innocent person to death to put 99 that are guilty to death,” said Gary Johnson (Johnson 1). In addition, the cost of it is also excessively expensive; therefore, this solution is not as good as its definition. The death penalty has its impacts to the criminal behavior of people as the result of reducing crime rates since it was re-instituted. One can say keep it but only for a symbol. Life is precious, and no one has the right to end other’s…

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The key features of the argument on supporting the death penalty developed by Ernest Van Den Haag first focuses on matters of mal-distribution and determining if an individual really deserves it, second the miscarriages of justice, third if the death penalty is a better deterrence than other punishments, fourth the incidental issues that the death penalty promotes, and fifth justice, excess, and degradation. The first argument that Ernest Van Den Haag argues is on the matter of mal-distribution, and determining whether an individual really deserves capital punishment. He expresses his view that mal-distribution being compared between those individuals who are guilty or innocent is undeserved. The acts of capital punishment upon an individual who knowingly commits a crime and is considered guilty in that sense deserves the punishment. However, on the other hand he considers that when mal-distribution is then put upon an innocent life that did not commit the crime but is considered guilty is seen as than unjust.…

    • 1032 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Capital Punishment: an Act of Justice or Revenge? To many, executing the offender of a heinous and violent murder is seen as an act of justice and retribution, and is an essential aspect of maintaining moral balance, however, perhaps the stronger and more substantial position is that the death penalty is a barbarous act of revenge, motivated by emotion rather than logic. According to the “Retributive Justice Theory” those who break the law deserve to suffer punishment, and likewise, deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime committed.…

    • 1554 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays

Related Topics