1. What, for a retributivist, are the sorts of considerations, pertaining to the act and the offender, that warrant punishment (Section 14.4)?  Do you think any or all of these are relevant to determining punishment? Do the nature of the act and the offender outweigh the possible consequences of punishment in deterring further crime? How would you defend your answers to these two questions?

2.Consider the following possible argument:

1. If death is a terrible punishment, then civilized people ought not to inflict it.

2. if death is not a terrible punishment, then capital punishment is not a deterrent.

3.  Either death is terrible or it is not.

4.  Therefore, either capital punishment is not a deterrent or civilized people ought not to inflict it.

Do you find the argument convincing?  Why or why not?  How might a retributivist criticize the argument?

3. If a person is put to death for a crime committed at an early age, the possibility of reform and redemption for that person is closed off.  Do you think that consideration provides a basis for questioning the morality of the death penalty?  Why or why not?