In a Kantian world with moral laws, capital punishment does not seem to be a theoretical solution for punishing murders. But when someone does commit murder those individuals render their rights, and henceforth would acknowledge their action with consequences, such as capital punishment. Jeffrey H. Reiman presents various argument against the use of capital punishment with no adequate evidence of effectiveness.
Capital punishment is a reasonable method to punish offenders for crimes committed, and is used for extremes heinous acts; it is also used under great scrutiny. Instead, Jeffrey H. Reimn conveys the notion of any violation of moral duties should be dealt with that same manner to the offender. If a victim was rape, then the offender …show more content…
In Reiman’s essay the growth of civilization argues against the use of capital punishment due to pain that it involves with the practice. The pain originates from physiological torture of the punished, for the offender would have specific acknowledge of when and where their life would end. Additionally, if that time was from reason changed several times could extensively impact them physiology even more so, for furthering out their life ending punishment. That acknowledgement could have a physiological effect worse than life in prison may have been experience. When a murders commits the crime there is no punishment that can be appropriate then capital punishment. Not saying every time there is a murder there should equal to being sentenced to capital punishment, but depending severity of crime would indicate the appropriate punishment. Capital punishment is not globally used, but does not mean its incorrect when done in a human manner; it should conduct a way that would be seen as acceptable any society. Civilization moral advancements has always boiled down to two critical aspects which include good and bad behaviors in society. As a government trying to conduct the right practices in a good manner would seem to fit the thought experiment of capital punishment, for fairness is clear only if …show more content…
Van den Haag wrote that people who are faced life imprisonment or death penalty, people would choose life in imprisonment. Statistics have failed to show how effectiveness of death penalty has deterred. One of the four which Reiman uses in his argument is that unless there is conclusive evidence that capital punishment “deters everyone who can be deterred” that there is chance that both can be the same. Since statistics can be skewed or falsely misrepresented of the actual facts of the topic. As human being there is an element to consider which is survival instinct, for capital punishment can persuade individuals from conducting sinister actions or activities that may end innocent lives. Obliviously there always will be a certain and small percentage of individuals which would never risk their lives in the attempt to end another. Thus, those who may be on the fence of committing these crimes can be persuaded with capital punishment, but statics may never be able capture that data. Since data is unable to capture who may have done, but rather it capture definite actions. Any individual who lives in a country, freely able to leave, has the understanding and acknowledges potential confliction with the country law may end in the forfeit of their
Capital punishment is a reasonable method to punish offenders for crimes committed, and is used for extremes heinous acts; it is also used under great scrutiny. Instead, Jeffrey H. Reimn conveys the notion of any violation of moral duties should be dealt with that same manner to the offender. If a victim was rape, then the offender …show more content…
In Reiman’s essay the growth of civilization argues against the use of capital punishment due to pain that it involves with the practice. The pain originates from physiological torture of the punished, for the offender would have specific acknowledge of when and where their life would end. Additionally, if that time was from reason changed several times could extensively impact them physiology even more so, for furthering out their life ending punishment. That acknowledgement could have a physiological effect worse than life in prison may have been experience. When a murders commits the crime there is no punishment that can be appropriate then capital punishment. Not saying every time there is a murder there should equal to being sentenced to capital punishment, but depending severity of crime would indicate the appropriate punishment. Capital punishment is not globally used, but does not mean its incorrect when done in a human manner; it should conduct a way that would be seen as acceptable any society. Civilization moral advancements has always boiled down to two critical aspects which include good and bad behaviors in society. As a government trying to conduct the right practices in a good manner would seem to fit the thought experiment of capital punishment, for fairness is clear only if …show more content…
Van den Haag wrote that people who are faced life imprisonment or death penalty, people would choose life in imprisonment. Statistics have failed to show how effectiveness of death penalty has deterred. One of the four which Reiman uses in his argument is that unless there is conclusive evidence that capital punishment “deters everyone who can be deterred” that there is chance that both can be the same. Since statistics can be skewed or falsely misrepresented of the actual facts of the topic. As human being there is an element to consider which is survival instinct, for capital punishment can persuade individuals from conducting sinister actions or activities that may end innocent lives. Obliviously there always will be a certain and small percentage of individuals which would never risk their lives in the attempt to end another. Thus, those who may be on the fence of committing these crimes can be persuaded with capital punishment, but statics may never be able capture that data. Since data is unable to capture who may have done, but rather it capture definite actions. Any individual who lives in a country, freely able to leave, has the understanding and acknowledges potential confliction with the country law may end in the forfeit of their