The Death Penalty : An Argument Against The Punishment Theory

1458 Words Dec 9th, 2015 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 death penalty has been an increasingly problematic issue in terms of retributive justice in the American criminal justice system. In America, this form of punishment has been used more often than in most other first world nations in the 21st century. More so, some of the criminals that were executed often turn out to be innocent, or unaware of the full circumstances of the murder that was committed. In this…

Related Documents