In the article "Yes, the Death Penalty Is Morally Permissible" by Louis P.Pojman he argues hat there are "moral reasons" to give the death penalty to 1st degree murders. He also gives two arguments, retributivist and abolitionist. The retributivist argument is everybody has to live. If a criminal kills a victim, the criminal should be punished by death. But, the abolitionist response is putting the criminal to death only "compounds evil" by having the victim dead already and giving the criminal the death penalty would only "double the evil". Pojman also states that the abolitionist is wrong, the state or government does not violate the rights of the criminal. He states that the criminals right was already given up by murdering. Also, if death penalty is an evil it can be justified by being a lesser of the murder that the criminal imposed. The author gives his objections against the death penalty. He states that capital punishment is "morally unacceptable thirst for revenge"; he means that someone should not be punished out of revenge of what the criminal did. In his second objection he states that innocent people may be put to death by convicting a wrong person. "We cannot compensate the death". His third objective is that capital punishment denies a criminal dignity as a human being. Lois Pojman is against capital punishment.
             In the second article "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty", Ernest van den Haag explains why capital punishment can be justified on deterrence. He explains that people don't do crimes on the basis that they might get caught and are scared of the punishment that might be given to them. He also explains that capital punishment is unjust because it may lead to the execution of the innocent. The penalty of capital punishment can't be reversed. Also poor people who are found guilty are more likely to be executed then the...