Primoratz's Arguments Against The Death Penalty

In addition, the third issue with convicted criminals pleading for their fundamental rights is that by taking someone else’s rights away, the criminal forfeits theirs. The government cannot protect a person who has committed the worst crime. According to Social Contract Theory, once someone breaks the rules of the contract, they are outed from the protection of the law. While it is common for a convicted criminal to cry for his fundamental right to life after taking those rights away from another, that does not mean that it is a valid point. With that being said, others also claim that the death penalty is contradictory. What’s important is that it doesn’t matter if it is contradictory. The point is that it’s fair and equal. As Primoratz points out, anyone could claim that having to pay fines for stealing money is contradicting. Any other punishment for murder would serve no justice. Sitting in prison for life allows a murderer to enjoy the benefits of the rights that they keep, when the dead will never get
If we were to get rid of the death penalty, we would be making all criminal acts proportionate to their convictions, except for murder, which would never allow for equal justice. So, the real question is what the judicial system will do to prevent these incorrect convictions in future? The death penalty is the top tier of capital punishment and is reserved for the darkest of crimes. If convicted murderers get less than they deserve, what message does that send to other criminals who might commit the same act? This argument fails for the same reasons that discrimination fails and that is that getting rid of the death penalty contradicts with getting rid of