The Argument Of Jeffery Reiman's View On The Death Penalty

Good Essays
Today I am going to go into the argument of Jeffery Reiman and his view on the death penalty. Then I’ll give an objection from Louis Pojman’s side and then my thoughts on what Reiman’s rebuttal would be. After that I will decide whether or not Reiman has a strong argument. In this paper I’m not looking at the end argument, but what the author gives as evidence. To start off I will look at Reiman’s argument.

Reiman goes against what Pojman states in his argument of commonsense. Reiman states that there already risk doing any crime. There also is a fear plateau that will act as a deterrence that will keep people from committing any crimes that involve the death penalty. He states that killing the murders will cause overkilling and also it
…show more content…
What people (including potential criminals) fear more will have a greater deterrent effect on them. People (including potential criminals) fear death more than they do any other humane punishment. The death penalty is a humane punishment. Therefore, people (including criminals) will be deterred more by the death penalty than by any other humane punishment. The death penalty will save innocent lives. It’s the killer vs. the innocent person idea. The death penalty is the greatest deterrent on people. Therefore people aren’t going to want to commit a crime such as killing someone else if they are going to die. This is the strongest punishment on someone and this has a bigger effect on someone than life in prison. The idea with the fear plateau is that people who are committing these crimes are already past the feat plateau and aren’t being deterred by life in prison. Reiman’s idea that there is this fear plateau doesn’t work for people who are going to be committing these crimes. The death penalty is something that will deter a lot of people according to Pojman. With the death penalty being on the table there won’t be as many crimes. There is the idea from people who have the death penalty on the table by killing them it will save a lot of innocent lives. These killers are most likely going to kill again, so to place the bet on some innocent life is the right choice. In the long run we are saving a number of people rather than one …show more content…
Reiman goes into detail that comparing deterrent impact versus life imprisonment and the death penalty shows that there is no difference in deterrent impact between the death penalty and life imprisonment. If life imprisonment is the same as the death penalty then why have the death penalty at all? It’s not worth killing someone else over something that is proven not to work in the study that shows life sentencing is the same as the death penalty. My argument itself is talking about common people within a certain normally experienced range. Reiman is not talking about crazy killers. This fear plateau is for common sense people like you and I that are going to go kill someone. Pojman argument that killers are above this range is correct, but this is not the people I am talking about in my article. Killing is killing, no matter on who does it. The argument on the best bet is the better choice is the human being. Well isn’t the killer a human being. He has rights to his life also. You are throwing him away and stating that there is nothing to do for him. There is a lot of reasons one would kill. He might not be in the right state or is someone trying to protect their family in self-defense. The government is also being a hypocrite by stating it is okay for us to kill, but not for everyone else. Why is it okay for them? Who gave them rights? Yes, this is the government, but we also live a

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision. Koch has a great quote where he says; “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn 't exist, government wouldn 't function at all.” meaning that government his flawed at all levels and should not be trusted with life. The most important replay Koch gives is does the death penalty cheapen the cost of a life. The death penalty must be seen as the ultimate punishment and not throw around. Yes Koch says if you cannot measure the cost of a human life, but murder can be a ruthless crime, but to condemn another man to death is not only costing that man his life but the emotional weight on the judge jury and the…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    You can’t punish someone based on what they did; Subjectivism will give anyone on this planet a chance to avoid the death penalty. How you might ask, to someone murder might be the biggest sin in the world, but in this system that’s not a moral fact. It’s just how you feel and your opinion towards the objective but again there is no moral objective fact towards your statement. A view like this is what we need, other people can justify that a murderer doesn’t deserve the death penalty. People will open their minds more broadly and look at the person as a human being.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Ernest Van Den Haag states “People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death” (Death Penalty Pro Con). Death is terrifying. With capital punishment comes death. If people know the consequences of their actions could lead to the death penalty then they wouldn’t commit these crimes.…

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For some, however, they will feel remorse immediately, whereas to others, they will feel regretful at a later time. Despite the notion that habitual criminals only commit crimes because they are caught in the heat of the moment , the truth is, the death penalty plays a role in whether or not one has the ability to go above and beyond to commit premeditated murder. Thanks to the death penalty, more criminals are reconsidering their ability to kill innocent people execution style while they are committing robberies, for example, in places like banks and department stores with fear they will receive the death penalty in the foreseeing future (Gerber, 2014). Not knowing what the death penalty consist of with regards to the sentencing would inflict less fear than if they face the consequences. In this case, many habitual criminals…

    • 1737 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    With some exception, both the anti- and pro physician participation literature shares a common premise: The ethics of Physician 's participation should be analyzed independently from the morality of the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty should not be used because it doesn’t deter the rate of crimes and that many innocent people…

    • 1323 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Simulating Murder Summary

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages

    We can bring self-defense into play to justified killing someone but not for the better good of saving other people’s lives. The study might hypothetical but they are true concerns. People tend to not perform an action if they find themselves as morally responsible for doing it. They have the need to find a justification for their actions as to not to be in discord with their guilt. Humans want to be quilt free which requires them to pin the blame on other for their actions.…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If we enforced the death penalty there wouldn’t be as many prisoners in prison; they would be executed. Here many people who despise the death penalty would probably object that capital punishment is not the moral solution to such a problem. Regardless, we need a solution and we need it fast. The death penalty can help the prisons from becoming too full. Just letting prisoners out isn’t helping the cause because most prisoners go back to prison with in three years or so anyways.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, it saves the taxpayers money because it could cost $.50-$1 for a bullet rather than spending more money on something or America could do the execution clandestinely where no one sees the gruesomeness of the execution. As a result the death penalty is the best…

    • 1827 Words
    • 8 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

    Overcrowded Prisons

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages

    When it comes down to it the death penalty should be used more often to get justice for these victims and their families. Many people argue today that the death penalty has killed innocent people. That being true that will not happen today. With science being as advance as it is today innocent men and women will no longer be sent to death for a crime they did not commit. With that being said the real criminal can be brought to justice so the victim and the victim’s family can have it too.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays