nal retribution requires that a proportional sentence be imposed upon the criminal. This could mean both death and life in prison are adequate punishments for murder. Both permanently abolish the criminal's freedom.
             While these two rationale for the death penalty are the most academic, some people argue the basis of the morality of the death penalty on the single maxim that killing is wrong. Whether it's a gang banger trying to steal someone's car or the government punishing that gang banger, taking human life if immoral no matter what justification is used. It is barbaric and uncivilized for an organized society to inflict this sentence upon its delinquents. Most of Western Europe has abolished capital punishment under this sentiment.
             Van Den Haag's essay contends that there is moral support for the death penalty found in both deterrence and retributivist arguments. He also contradicts some of the other popular arguments for abolition of capital punishment such as unequal distribution, cost, and dignity. He starts with the complaint by many that the death penalty is administered unequally.
             The distribution of sentencing, according to the author, no matter how unequal, does not change the morality of the death penalty. "Improper distribution cannot affect the quality of what is distributed," (Van Den Haag 340). If it is immoral, then distributing it evenly will not make it moral and vice versa. While Van Den Haag agrees that discrimination that causes punishment of the innocent is an unfavorable event, most cases of discrimination in this way regard the guilty being discriminated against. "Maldistribution of any punishment among those who deserve it is irrelevant to its justice or morality," (Van Den Haag 340). If capital punishment were more equally distributed among the guilty, it would mean that more people would be executed. Van Den Haag also asserts that maldistribution of the death penalty among the g...