Should the death penalty be abolished?

The death penalty administers justice because some people deserve death

Question: Should the death penalty be abolished?
Position‹2 of 2: No, we should not abolish the death penalty
Argument‹3 of 5›: The death penalty administers justice because some people deserve death

For justice to be done, a person's punishment must fit the severity of their crime. In some cases, the only fitting punishment is death.

The argument

In order for justice to be done, people must receive the punishments they deserve. For some criminals, a sentence of life in prison does not fit the severity of their crime. At times, the only punishment that fits heinous crimes is death. For this reason, we should not abolish the death penalty. If we prevent the criminal justice system from giving people what they deserve, we stop it from administering justice. The death penalty is a necessary component of our criminal justice system because some people deserve it.

Premises

[P1]Justice requires that criminals receive punishments proportionate to the severity of their crimes. [P2] For some heinous crimes, no punishment short of death is proportionate to what the offender deserves. [P3] A criminal justice system that cannot impose deserved punishments fails to administer justice. [C] Therefore, the death penalty should not be abolished, because it is necessary for justice to be done.

Counter-arguments

Although deservedness should certainly be a consideration, it is not the only factor that should decide a person's punishment. In some cases, the criminal justice system must give defendants mercy. As flawed human beings, we would be in trouble if we got what we deserved all the time. At certain points, everyone has received undeserved forgiveness, which means that we're all obligated to give others the same grace. We must extend criminals the same mercy we have received, and wish to receive, ourselves. For this reason, we should abolish the death penalty.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Proportionate desert is one aim of punishment among several. Deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and mercy all bear on a sentence, so what an offender deserves does not by itself determine what a system should impose. [Rejecting P2] That no lesser punishment fits certain crimes is asserted rather than argued. Whole-life imprisonment is available, and the premise gives no account of why it falls short beyond the intuition it is meant to support. [Rejecting P3] The move from what an offender deserves to what a state may do is the weakest step. Courts convict the wrong people, and a punishment that cannot be undone once carried out fails at justice in a way this premise never weighs.