Retribution Theory Of The Death Penalty

1458 Words 6 Pages
(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 theory provides a context understands the death penalty in extreme cases of conscious murder, but Reiman is aware of the unethical practicality of this form of punishment. In essence, this study will argue against the death penalty through Jeffrey Reiman’s “moderate” retribution theory in the modern criminal justice system. The
…show more content…
Certainly, Reiman’s moderate theory of retribution provides a pathway to abolishing the death penalty because many individuals that are given the death penalty are victims of an aggressive and overly reactionary criminal justice system. This is one way to argue in favor of removing the death penalty through Reiman’s argument on reactionary cycle of a “eye for an eye” mentality, which creates extreme judgments that cannot be overturned if the individual is later found to be innocent. Reiman is aware of the long tradition of the death penalty as a form of retributive justice, but he finds it impractical in terms of being an accurate judge of the intent and motives of the alleged

Related Documents