Jeffrey Reiman's Arguments Against Capital Punishment

Two Sides of a Story: Death Penalty Debate Let us begin by looking at why the death penalty is morally wrong on many levels according to Stephen B. Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, and a teacher of criminal law. He wrote an essay on this debate called, “Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment.” We will also look at the other side of the debate (story), as to why the death penalty is morally legitimate in the views of Louis P. Pojman, whose essay is called, “ Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible,” which is just an excerpt from, Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? First, there are innocent people being executed for crimes they didn’t commit. Whether it be from forced confessions, where people have been interrogated too long, yelled at, and threatened to the point of exhaustion, and because of this, they give a false confession.

Research Paper: Capital Punishment Capital punishment is one of the most controversial and talked-about topics in the United States today. It is an issue that is not explicitly mentioned in our constitution, so states have been left to interpret the law. As of April 2017, 32 states in the US legally allow the death penalty. Of the 18 states that have banned it, the most recent was Maryland in 2013. The topic is so controversial that the Supreme Court has gotten involved many times, deciding on more cases that have to do with capital punishment than most other subjects.

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.

The death penalty is a sentence that has no use. The process has become too slow over the years to the point where some people die before they get executed. Similar to the case of Max Soffar who may have been innocent, but died of cancer before he had the chance to fight for the freedom he may have deserved(Houston Press). This also shows that the death penalty has taken and ruined the lives of innocent people. A study shows that 4% of defendants sentenced to death penalty are innocent(The Guardian).The second reason is the high number of botched executions that happen in the USA. The only one without failed executions is the most intense one which is the firing squad.

The death penalty sends a message to citizens; a message that says murder is not outrageous, unless the state is doing it as a sanction. This message helps to justify civilian killings of people believed to be deserving of death and may possibly even cause an uprise in vigilante style murders. This message also leaves an almost open air on what is wrong and provides no consistent moral ground for society to base their beliefs on. This does not mean that people will suddenly think murder is a favorable deed, but it may cause some to not realize how terrible it is. Joseph Summer wrote this in an article titled “Some Adverse Effects of the Death Penalty in History”: “…people learned 3 lessons from the government’s violent example: to use

Being on death row often prolongs the pain for the inmate. They spend their time in prison fearing the inevitable which for them is death. Today, we live in a society that is very divided on this issue. There are many in support of the death penalty, suggesting that it acts as a positive deterrent against future crime. There are also many

According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment.

Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion

Annotated Bibliography Draft Student name : Haider Zafaryab Student number: 2360526 Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society. Source 1: Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996).

Reiman begins his essay be explaining and describing the reasons in which he is against the common sense idea. The basis behind this theory is that common sense would tell someone that if something cost higher than something else, then fewer people will choose the item that cost more. Reiman offers three arguments in which he disagrees that the common sense idea will deter crime. The first one being that just because a person fears one penalty more than another, does not mean that this will deter the criminal behavior. It was stated that there is an equal likelihood of crime being deterred for the death penalty than there is for life behind bars.

In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.

David Oshinksy’s most recent book, Capital Punishment on Trial: Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America, focuses on the extremely controversial yet important issue of capital punishment in the United States. Oshinsky’s text covers the debated topic in a scholarly yet concise way. With the text being a mere 125 pages, he covers the prolonged, contentious history of the death penalty. At the beginning of the book, Oshinsky describes what occurred in the early hours of August 11, 1967. William Micke was suddenly murdered in the hallway of his house by William Henry Furman, a disabled, illiterate 24 year old who had a troubled past with law enforcement. Furman was charged with felony murder and was sentenced to death for the crime

Those who support capital punishment believe that some crimes are so horrible they deserve an equal punishment. It is also believed by these people that the death penalty deters criminals from such crimes. Those who do not support capital punishment believe that humans should not take a life no matter what, and they say that there is evidence that some people have been wrongly executed. In Furman vs. Georgia the Supreme Court changed the way that criminals were tried in court and stopped all executions until better laws were made. Executions were started again in 1980, and during the 1990s the execution rate began to rise.

Whether a criminal is guilty of committing murder or any other capital offense, they should all be given the same sentence - life in prison. How is it fair to allow them to voluntarily choose the death penalty over prison? Criminals willingly sought to break the law and should endure the lifelong debt they owe not only to society but to the family of the innocent victims whose lives have been taken. As asserted by Robert Johnson, a professor of justice and law, and Sandra Smith, a professor of legal studies, death by incarceration is a more effective and suitable form of punishment than the death penalty (Cromie and Zott 174). Although some might argue that it is unfair to keep a criminal alive, they fail to understand that the freedom they once had is permanently lost.

If the cold-blooded killing of thousands does not lower premeditated murder, there is really no point (because let 's face it, the saying “eye for an eye” is childish and socially unacceptable). This same conclusion was agreed upon in a recent poll by almost 90% of the world’s criminological societies (Facts About the Death Penalty). However in all honesty, the argument against the death penalty doesn’t just stop at its redundancy, but also its