(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
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