[Taciturn]

I tend to prefer deterrence as justification for criminal punishment more than retribution as justification. Though, I guess they aren't mutually exclusive.

There are some good points in the quote, such as how the death penalty wouldn't be disproportionate when used on a murderer, and that the murderer doesn't necessarily have a right to life after he committed the crime.

But: "Primoratz eviscerates this argument by showing that the requirement of human infallibility for judgment is truly impossible." He eviscerated it by agreeing with it?

I don't know - I've gone back and forth on the death penalty. In the end, it doesn't deter... There is a remote possibility of executing innocent people, and its expensive with mandatory appeals and all of that. I guess I'm against it, even though I think it would be fair in some murder cases.