Final answer:
Igor Primoratz does not provide a direct response to the abolitionist argument that the death penalty discriminates against the poor and uneducated, but the argument alludes to systemic biases in the justice system that may lead to unfair application of capital punishment.
Step-by-step explanation:
Igor Primoratz does not directly respond to the abolitionist argument regarding discrimination against the poor and uneducated within the context of the death penalty. However, the abolitionist argument suggests that the death penalty is unfairly applied and discriminates against those who may lack the resources for a robust defense, essentially arguing that those who are poor and uneducated are more likely to be sentenced to death because they cannot afford the legal expertise required to navigate the justice system effectively. It is a criticism that points towards systemic biases within capital punishment procedures and calls for a reevaluation of the approach to administering such a penalty.
Debates around the death penalty, its effectiveness as a deterrent, and its fairness continue to be significant points of contention. Critics assert that rather than acting as a deterrent, capital punishment may perpetuate injustice by disproportionately affecting marginalized socioeconomic groups. While the ethical implications of choosing between higher overall murder rates and the occasional execution of an innocent person are complex, the search for a fair and just criminal justice system remains a priority for many concerned with the morality of capital punishment.