Jeffrey Reiman And Kant's Theory Of Capital Punishment

Improved Essays
Capital Punishment has been around for hundreds of years and was brought to America by the Europeans in the early 1600s; The first recorded death being back in 1608. Back in that time the Death Penalty was used in many cases from thievery to murder, making it the social norm during that time. Though in today’s society, capital punishment has been deemed by some as inhumane or morally wrong. In some ways it’s become a political issue in which a higher percentage of Republicans favor the death penalty more so than Democrats. A famous American philosopher, Jeffrey Reiman, has developed his opinion on the death Penalty as being acceptable based off the Retribution argument, yet it is morally permissible to be merciful in these cases. Reiman believes …show more content…
Kant’s ideology is to treat people as ends rather than as a means, meaning we respect the ends they choose for themselves, but we can’t allow them to use others as a means for their doings, so you have to punish them for their acts. Kant also believes the punishment ought to match the crime, if someone murders someone else, they themselves should be put to death. I go along with Kant’s idea of punishment, and disagree with Reiman’s thoughts on capital punishment. I believe if a person goes out of their way to kill someone for reasons other then defense or protection, then they are committing the worst possible crime. May it be revenge, religious reasons, or even enjoyment, none of these are acceptable enough to deem murder morally acceptable. When it comes to punishing these murderers, I believe the basic Retribution Argument settles the matter quiet appropriately. Equality in society means the person who commits the act deserves the same suffering in which they inflicted, meaning the only suitable punishment to murder is being put to death, so murderers should be killed. Though Capital punishment is seen as inhumane, I see that as if they are willing to take the life of a person, then it is more then acceptable to do the same to them. Many things factor into life in jail versus death penalty such as, if the person is 90 years old and kills someone most likely if they’re put on jail they only have to worry about a few years in jail before they die which isn’t very severe. The Death Penalty is a very intense form of punishment that would probably deter many from killing someone else. My opinion is people are scared of death, making the death penalty a great deterrence for murder. Life if jail just provides murderers with a place with shelter, food, and sometimes socialization, but is just a more confined way of living. Someone who lives on the street or in the cold for example may find this

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Also, citizens should decide whether the death penalty is being used justly or being unfairly used against certain people. The pro side for capital punishment believes that it should be allowed. People on the pro side believe that a person should pay for what act of violence they committed by taking away his or her life since that person took another life. These people believe that the death penalty would be used as a form of deterrence meaning that the thought of dying for a crime would keep people from committing crime. A result from that, they believe, is that it would lower crime.…

    • 2346 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He becomes a big supporter of the death penalty which is dominant in his paper where he list different objections to the death penalty than counteracts them. Koch starts off by saying that the death penalty is simply barbaric. The action itself is not barbaric due to its purpose of killing without suffering. A down side of killing people is you cannot take the death penalty back. Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Burns this punishment should be death, but what about the person’s fundamental rights 's to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Although Burns does not directly address it in this chapter, I believe he feels that when you commit a crime you lose these fundamental rights. But are these not fundamental rights that everyone is guaranteed under the Constitution? Their is no clause in the Constitution that says unless your a murder, you lose these rights. Allowing the government to legally kill the guilty person is wrong, and violates this person’s legal rights.…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    I also think we should abolish the death penalty because killing a human for what they did wrong such as murder, will not solve the problem or give the victim permanent relief, it will only be temporary and we are just as wrong as them when they committed the crime. Nathanson states that this does not solve the problem at all because we are still acting barbarically to those who are guilty of a barbaric crime. If we continue to punish the wrongdoers with the same violent actions, we are setting an example that violence is the answer to our problems and that it is morally right. That is not what should be done we should not have to punish the wrongdoer with a severe punishment like the death penalty to get our point across. Like Nathanson says we should want the state to set the right example, and the only violence that is…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In discussions of capital punishment, one controversial issue has been whether or not the death penalty benefits the states that enforce capital punishment. On the one hand, those who oppose the death penalty argues that capital punishment is inhumane and should not be used to end someone’s life. On the other hand, those in favor of capital punishment firmly believe that the death penalty is the only way to make the world just. My own view is: the death penalty gives life value and justice; it helps reduce prison crowding, and ensures public safety. Americans today tend to believe that the death penalty is inhumane and if the government kills someone they are decreasing the value of life.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior 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
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Some people see it as an eye for an eye type of ordeal, while others see it as legal murder. According to Steven Goldberg (1974), “one who supports capital punishment can foreclose further discussion by asserting that an eye must be taken for an eye, even if the taking of an eye does not deter anyone any more than would a lesser penalty.” Some people believe that having the death penalty creates a safer environment. Edwin R. Keedy (1912) believes that having the death penalty in places prevents some of these awful criminals from taking their bad behavior even further and taking someone’s life. According to Roger Hood (2016), the death penalty is not any more of a deterrent than life…

    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I am all about the death penalty, but there should be strict guidelines for someone that is chosen to be put to death. Murders and individuals that partake in hard crimes do not deserve to be rewarded by being kept in a jail cell. Murders that have taken someone’s life do not deserve the luxuries within…

    • 1073 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Death Penalty Is Wrong

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The death penalty may be an extreme measure, however, death may be the correct way to deal with extremely dangerous convicts. The death penalty may be cruel and inhuman, even so, if someone were to murder multiple civilians or commit a massive massacre, more than likely, no one would object to the execution. Not every crime should end in the death penalty, only the ones that reach a certain quota that should be punished with death. If someone steals a potato there would not be any need for death, the death penalty should only be used in a last case scenario situation. Additionally, to actually go through with the death penalty, one has to be proven absolutely guilty.…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Killing someone makes us the killer, doesn’t it? If one stole from a stealer just for the simple fact that they stole, does that justify their actions? It makes us no better than the said stealer, or killer in a more extreme case. A second point on why the death punishment is cruel is because we are not God. That may sound extreme to compare humans to a God, but it is what we are trying to play a part as.…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics