Final answer:
Primoratz outlines that without the death penalty, the fairness in sentencing is affected due to the lack of proportionality, resulting in potential injustice for those deserving less severe punishments. The Supreme Court maintains capital punishment considering deterrence and retribution, balancing individual rights with societal needs.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Primoratz, if the death penalty were abolished, individuals who deserve lesser punishments might be treated unfairly because there would be a lack of a proportionate upper limit in the sentencing scale.
The abolition of capital punishment might imply that those deserving the most severe punishment fall into the same category as those whose crimes are significantly less grave.
In essence, the fairness in sentencing relies on a proportionality principle, where different degrees of culpability or harm are matched by correspondingly different levels of punishment.
Without the death penalty, the principle of proportionality is compromised, which indirectly might result in unfair treatment for those who deserve less than the ultimate punishment, as the most severe crimes would not be met with a distinctively more severe response.
The consideration of the government's need to govern and provide for the common good can sometimes balance against the expansion of individuals' rights. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, taking into account the possibility of deterrence and retribution.
This ties into broader ethical considerations on whether it is more moral to spare all individuals at the expense of potentially higher crime rates or to execute some, including the risk of executing the innocent, to achieve lower crime rates overall.