Jeffrey Reiman Capital Punishment Analysis

Better Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    An objection that Haag uses is that the right to life is forfeited if the crime that is broken is severe enough. While the counter argument to this is that some rights should be taken, but to kill another human being is not the only form of punishment. Once a life is taken, it cannot be returned, it’s a dark road that has no return. Some state that imprisonment does nothing to deter the next crime of committing that same crime. So sense the argument finds that life imprisonment seem to be a sensible punishment.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nathanson who is an abolitionist is going to answer negatively to this whereas Haag response who is retentionists will answer positively. Nathanson believes the death penalty is immoral, he talks about two versions of what he calls equality, as a retributivist, where the punishment must fit the crime committed. The two versions are strict Lex talionis “eye for an eye” or that the punishment must bring about the same harm to the wrongdoer as it did to the victim. Nathanson argues that there are problems with Lex talionis, it suggests punishments that are morally unacceptable. Nathanson believes that punishment does not need to be hundred percent the same, it just needs to inflict the same amount of suffering.…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example one argument that would go against the idea is presented from the view of a Kantian. This argument says you cannot treat a person as a mere means. This is saying that even though someone may of committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, it is not permissible for the person to receive it because that would be treating them as a mere means. In addition to the death penalty being used for retribution another way it can be used is for deterrence. It is thought that the death penalty is a good way to deter others from committing similar crimes because if they see that a person is sentenced to death they will not want the same out come, resulting in the person not committing the crime.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I honestly do not full heartedly support the death penalty, but I think there are rare cases in which it would be just and in the best interest of the safety of the general public. Justice can be defined as being “fair, impartial, [and] giving a deserved response” (“List of the Virtues”). If the trial for the crime is fairly administered, and we are certain with no doubt that the person on death row is guilty, the death penalty ought to be justified. Not every crime or even murder mandates the use of capital punishment. However, if the just punishment for the crime is the death penalty, the executioner and those involved in the conviction could still be considered virtuous because they are being just.…

    • 1641 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Stephen reclaims that we as humans have respect for human dignity, we can punish people for their crimes but we can’t deprive them of everything, which the death penalty does. With the death penalty it’s basically saying to that convict that your life is basically worthless and has no human value. Nathanson believes we are not in any right position to affirm that to anyone. The main reason why this is such a big dispute is that people think a murderer has forfeited is rights as a human being, or morally free to kill him or her. To me though they do forfeit some of their rights but at the same time they are still a human being like the rest of us.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In contrast if he was already a criminal they would consider it. Since the virtue theory bases its decision on the person morals it’s very hard to see this as a suitable way determine if capital punishment is right. Out of the three theory’s I presented to you I will explain my own opinion on capital punishment and which theory best fits it. First of all I agree that capital punishment should exist. I feel this way because there are crimes in this would that if anybody thought of doing that being sentenced to death should cross there mind.…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (1350)Against the Death Penalty: An Analysis of Reiman’s “Moderate” Retribution Theory This argument against the death penalty will examine the “moderate retribution theory of Jeffrey Reiman. In this theory, the premise of retribution for murder defines the validation of the death penalty, yet not in the abuse of justice found in the American criminal justice system. Reiman believes that the death penalty should be abolished because criminals are not always cognitively aware of the crimes that they commit, which demands the rehabilitation of the individual. Reiman argues against the death penalty because it offers an extreme form of punishment for crimes that are rarely “conscious” in the mind of the criminal. This moderate form of retribution…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Sees punishment as a temporary suppressant, and because we are all human beings with free will, punishment is not a successful deterrent. However, this theory is seen to reduce moral problems to medical problems. I believe that Rehablitationist theory when concerning capital punishment, would morally oppose it. The death penalty is the most extreme form of punishment, and since this theory sees punishment as a short term resolution to the issue of crime, it could be argued that the death penalty is the state’s way of attempting to permanently deal with the issue. With this said, there are still serial murderers and capital punishment isn’t working as a deterrence.…

    • 786 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    While the justice system tries its best to find the right people who committed a crime, it is made up of humans who can and will make mistakes. Because of this, people who are actually innocent can be determined guilty. If they are sentenced to the death penalty (and the state goes through with it) and new evidence (or even old evidence) shows that they are actually innocent, they cannot bring that person back to life. If they are sentenced to life in prison, however, and they are found to be not guilty, they are able to be released from prison. It is not an ideal situation but it is better than dying for a crime that a person did not commit.…

    • 733 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Some crimes do not deserve death penalty Justice should be served right when the type of crime committed is equal to the type of sentence served. Most of the petty crimes do not need capital punishment but imprisonment. Capital punishment should not be practiced in that they are some alternatives to deal with this particular type of crime 1. Counseling of the criminal, here they should be educated about the dangers of crimes and consequences so that they should reform, and also be taught on alternatives way other than killing on how they should handle that particular situation 2. Setting up of mental institutions, these will highly assist since some people who commit murder may be due to stress and depression and other mental problems so that they should be counseled so as to reform other than be killed.…

    • 780 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays