During the course of this week, we read two different articles over the death penalty. The articles each proposed their own opinion on whether the death penalty should be legal or not legal. Pojmans article presented the idea that the death penalty should be legal. He presented two supporting arguments; eye for and eye and deterrent. In the eye for an eye argument, Pojman brings about this idea that when someone commits murder it is the ultimate crime against humanity. And we as a society have an obligation to punish the offender in an equal manner. That the death penalty is the true/ultimate form of justice. Pojman defends the idea that this justification is not about revenge but a moral obligation. This moral obligation must be adhered to maintain order within our society. So we may establish murder as something we ought never to do. Pojmans deterrent argument basically states that the death penalty prevents more murders from happening. This argument is used to prove a point that because of fear of the death penalty opposed to long-term sentences, fewer murders are committed. In the counter argument against the death penalty, the author focused on more of the moral/ethical issues relating to the death penalty. The beginning of the argument focuses on disputing the claims that the death penalty is moral. The second half of the claim disputes the deterrent argument, and give out statistically facts associated with crime. The lack of social justice within out justice system entirely. I like one point that Ms. Wallace presented in the class, that maybe the discussion on the death penalty should not be whether it is moral or not. But the argument should be about whether is should be legal based on all the cracks throughout the justice system not just the death penalty within itself. I think if anyone is going to argue the death penalty that should be the main focus. With this counter argument, some emotions are taken out of the context and the argument for/against the death penalty is based on facts.