Jeffrey Reiman Retribution Theory Summary

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
…show more content…
In this reactionary type of system, American judges often use the death penalty for crime that do not warrant such a horrific penalty. In some cases, it is has been found that criminals charged with murder and sentenced to death may have been innocent. After they are put to the death, there is retrial or process in which to free them from being wrongly accused. In Reiman’s moderate theory of retribution, the judges and legal officials involved in passing a death penalty should also be punished for abusing this form of punishment without absolute proof of the criminal’s conscious intent of committing 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

  • Superior Essays

    A result from that, they believe, is that it would lower crime. An attorney, Steven D. Stewart had stated, “The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal” (ProCon). He is referring to if the judicial system makes a mistake by sentencing an innocent person to death. Everyone makes mistakes so in his mind, the death penalty cannot be taken away or else many other things that could possibly cause mistakes should be taken away. On the other hand, the con side believes that the death penalty should be removed from the judicial system.…

    • 2346 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Next, in Stephen Nathanson’s writing “An for an Eye”, he suggests the second stage is the death penalty in practice. Nathanson believes the death penalty is completely justified, but in most cases it could be unjustified in practice. Legal judiciaries that impose the death penalty are not the ones leading to the execution of innocent humans. Nathanson also suggested the death penalty is inconsistent with the value of justice in society specifically. Nathanson’s argument is inconsistent with the value of justice, because the death penalty was imposed due to the extent of the specific crimes committed.…

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved 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

    Modern Capital Punishment

    • 1058 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Many people have condemned capital punishment, as well as praised it. Beccaria (2010), a classical philosopher on the death penalty, heavily critiqued the entire process entailing capital punishment. His key argument is that capital punishment does not prevent the offenders, but in its place, the long-term detention makes a long lasting impression on the attention of the audience. In addition, the death penalty has injurious impacts on the society by minimizing the sensitivity to human suffering. The proponents argue that if the law was just left to be open and allow the criminals to be treated equal then, it will be very dangerous to the public (Masur,1989).…

    • 1058 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He points out that executor jobs are just as degrading and uncomfortable as any other job can be, and also makes a strong statement on how the death penalty is a way of catharsis that directly affected victims and communities get. These points are effective in favor for the death penalty. However, Mencken’s argument that death row prisoners, after running out of appeals, should not have to wait long terms of time until they are put to death is not reasonable. These murderers should be allowed to suffer alive during the long wait because of their horrible…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 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
  • Superior Essays

    Against Death Penalty

    • 1736 Words
    • 7 Pages

    That is exactly what the death penalty does it helps deter someone from killing another person by threatening their own life by capital punishment. Now of course as with all other controversial topics not everyone is on board with this idea. One of those people is named Michael Welch. Welch believes that the death penalty should be abolished. Welch also believes that there are two reasons for the dealt penalty, one being…

    • 1736 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is no room for vengeance and a revenge stance in our justice system. The arguing stance for the death penalty says it deters murders, but in reality, the death penalty just leads to another loss of human life - regardless of the murder being an execution. When somebody tortures another human being, the government does not decide to torture that person in return. It’s the same for a rapist; the government does not rape the rapist. So, why does the government decide to murder the murderer?…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If that murderer were then put to death for their crime, it would be a violation of his or her rights. Therefore, wouldn’t capital punishment be immoral? Bedau responds to John Locke’s theory concerning this matter. Locke’s theory is that when a person takes away another person’s life, they have then forfeited their own right to live. Bedau reacts by addressing that there are other options for punishment other than the death penalty, and that nowhere states that a murderer must be put to death.…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 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