Death Penalty Is Wrong

Pojman constantly mentions that a killer FORFEITS their right to life. He then infers as if this is entailed by the loss of one’s right to life that someone who has forfeited their right to life DESERVES TO DIE. It might seem that he is making the claim that, if someone or something LACKS a certain negative right, then we are OBLIGATED to do something to them . But, this does not follow. Many meat eaters argue, for instance, that animals do not have a right not to be harmed. But, it does not follow from this that we are morally OBLIGATED to harm them! The LACK of a duty of NON-maleficence does not entail the PRESENCE of a duty of maleficence. Similarly, it would seem that, even if a killer forfeits their right to life, it does not follow that we are

Clearly, killers would think twice before killing in this case. Evidence is inconclusive in the actual case, because our actual situation is not IDEAL. In the ideal case, punishment was swift, public, and universal. In reality, we rarely use the death penalty only about 1/750th of the time, punishment is slow it takes over 10 years on average to administer the punishment, and not public. Pojman suggests that, if we made our actual practice closer to the ideal, it would CERTAINLY deter killers. The Best Bet Argumen, Pojman argues that, ultimately, even if it is possible that the death penalty is NOT an effective deterrent of killings, it is still the best bet. Consider the 4 possibilities: It DOES Deter Killings It Does NOT Deter Killings We DO kill killers we do use capital punishment , first,We save many innocent victims’ lives, second, We unjustly kill murderers We do NOT kill killers ,no capital punishment, third, We fail to save many innocent lives when we could have, last We save many guilty murderers’ lives . Pojman argues that using capital punishment is the best option. Clearly, it is a