Jeffrey Reiman: Against the Death Penalty:

Jeffrey Reiman had written an article that is titled "Against the Death Penalty." In his article he says "that it is good in principle to avoid the death penalty and bad in practice to impose it". There are many points that Reiman brings up in the article that he uses to support why he is against the death penalty. Even though there are many points that he brings up that are true they might weaken his premises. There is one particular point that he had brought up in his article that does have a false conclusion even though the idea had some truth. Therefore, because the conclusion might be false it weakens his premises. In order for anyone to truly appreciate what Jeffery Reiman had written in his article and why one of his arguments are weak, the reader must first understand what the full argument that is being discussed, what the premises that is being objected to along with the authors evidence, and then the reasons for the objection toward the premises.

In Reiman's article "Against the Death Penalty" he begins by briefly summing up his position about the death penalty in four ideas and then he goes into further detail with each of them. The first point that he proposes states that "though the death penalty is a just punishment for some murderers, it is not unjust to punish murderers less harshly (down to a certain limit)". Within his first premises he shows how some of the most accepted debates against the death penalty are weak. By doing this he strengthens the idea that the death penalty is just punishment for some murderers, however; as he continues he shows how it is not unjust to use other types of punishments. While strengthening this idea he uses the lex talionis, which is defined as "the principle or law of retaliation that a punishment inflicted should correspond in degree and kind of the offense of the wrong doer, as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; retributive justice". Then he uses the lex talionis and states that "it does not imply that punishing less harshly is automatically unjust". What he is stating here is that it's not unjust if a murderer was to be put in prison for life without parole rather than given the death sentence. The second point states that "though the death penalty would be justified if needed to deter future murders, we have no good reason to believe that it is needed to deter future murders". He argues in this premise, that studies that have been done, have never found a difference in the successfulness of the death penalty verses the life imprisonment in deterring future murderers from committing such horrendous crimes. Since there is no real true data that can prove that having the death penalty deters future murderers, there is not a good reason to keep the death penalty as an option. The third point states that "in refraining from imposing the death penalty the state, by its vivid and impressive example, contributes to reducing our tolerance for cruelty and thereby fosters the advance of human civilization as we understand it". While strengthening this premise Reiman attempts to show that since the States play an educational role in society it is important that the murderer not be put on death row because it is a form of torture. Reiman's statement here is saying that if we do not use the death penalty then we are not showing cruelty toward the murderer thus giving an example of how we do not tolerate cruelty. The forth point that Reiman had stated says "though the death penalty is in principle a just penalty for a murderer, it is unjust in practice in America because it is applied in arbitrary and discriminatory ways, and thus is likely to continue into the foreseeable future". To prove these premises Reiman describes the differences between white verses black criminals. He shows that if the murderer was to kill a white person he would have a higher chance in getting the death penalty, especially if that murder is a black person. Reiman does not only focus on the unfairness shown to ethnic groups but he also points out that there is also unfairness amongst people who are better off financially verses those who fall in the low income bracket. In this premises he points out that since America tends to have higher numbers of certain ethnic groups and higher number of low income individuals on death row there is a concern that the death penalty is unjust since it is seen as being discriminate. All of these points have many true aspects and he supports his points very strongly; however, there are some underlying factors that undermine his claim.

In summary, the premises that is going to be objected to, as stated previously, says that since the States "plays an educational role in society" it is important that the death penalty should not be practiced because it is a form of torture. Reiman has several points he brings up for evidence to support his premises. He uses the comparison between torture and execution showing that the two have similar features. He states that if we do not torture a person even if they deserve it, then we are giving the example that torturing someone is something that an uncivilized person would do. Reiman proves this by describing the terms torture and execution. He describes torture as including extreme pain and being at another person's mercy. Execution can include extreme pain, if not physically than psychologically, and it includes the murderer to be at the mercy of the justice system that sentenced him to the death penalty. He goes on proving his point by describing how a death row inmate undergoes a form of psychological torture and he refers to a book written by Robert Johnson, titled Condemned to Die. In Johnson's book that Reiman recalls says that "the painful psychological deterioration suffered by a substantial majority of the death row prisoners he studied". It is viewed that a death row inmate is the most dangerous because they have nothing to lose and therefore they are confined and isolated from the other inmates. They receive "the least and the worst of the prison's facilities". The death row inmates are also viewed as something below human by being abused and ridiculed. They are also frequently reminded how "powerless" they are and therefore their ego being knocked down. All of these things that a death row inmate receives are considered as a form of torture because it is not only suffered through physical pain but also psychological pain. Reiman describes the death penalty as a "penalty of torture until death" instead of just being a "penalty of death". All in all, Reiman is essentially saying that because the murderers suffer psychologically when sitting on death row awaiting for his execution, it is "more than the lex talionis allows as a just penalty for murder - and thus it is unjust in practice". Even though Reiman has been able to show evidence for his premises there are a few points that he brings up that are weakened.

One of the points that he addresses is that the psychological torture that the death row inmates have to endure is against the lex talionis and the death penalty should not be used as a form of punishment. He goes on describing the type of psychological torture that they go through. These types of torture include: confinement, isolation, lack proper prison facilities, are mocked, and have their ego damaged. The question that I would like to ask is, how can the psychological torture of being on death row be any different than the torture that the murderer had inflicted on his victim? A case where a person had been executed was John Wayne Gacy. John would entertain for children as a clown, assist his neighbors when they needed his help, and essentially was just a normal person. However, this is how he was able to hide his hideous crimes. By the time the police finished inspecting his home they had found the remnants of "28 young men and boys" and Gacy said that "there were four others that he had thrown into the river". Another example of a case where a person had committed some horrific crimes against young men and boys; however, he was sentenced to approximately a thousand years instead of given a death sentence, his name is Jeffrey Dahmer. This murderer would convince young men and boys to go to his house with him. He would then rape, strangle, and then dismember them. In both of these cases the young men and boys had to endure both the physical and psychological pain. It is almost certain that the physical pain that these victims had to suffer was much worse then what the murderers feel when they are being or would have been executed. The psychological pain that the inmates endure while on death row could not be any worse than what the young men and boys had to go through. After all, it is hard to imagine what it felt like to be a young man or a boy who had been taken advantage of by someone who they trusted. These victims must have felt disgust, pain, guilt, loss of ego, etc. Therefore, even if the psychological torture between the murderer and the victim are relatively the same, then the death penalty is not more than what the lex talionis allows. The physical pain that the murderer would have to undergo being executed in many cases is either painless or nearly painless. Therefore, if the physical and the psychological torture are no worse than what the murderer had put his victims through, then it is not unjust to sentence him the death sentence. If the punishment is not the death penalty then there is no justice for the victims. When a murderer like the previous examples of serial killers, is not put on death row for his crimes, then the States are not showing that they do not tolerate cruelty. On the contrary, by not punishing the murderer with the death penalty they are showing that they do tolerate cruelty. Therefore, the death penalty is a very important form of punishment because it shows that there are equal ramifications for the horrific crimes committed against the victims of the murderers. Another point that weakens Reimans arguments is "we will not torture even those who have earned it by their crimes conveys...that it is something that civilized people will not do even to given evil people their just deserts". The following questions come to mind when thinking about this statement. How are we civilized if we allow a murderer to get away with his crimes by just sentencing him to life in prison? How is it right that we allow a person like a murderer to enjoy decent food, a bed to sleep on, extracurricular activities, etc? What about the victims that he had robbed of being able to enjoy some things as simple as food, a bed, a family, happiness, etc? How is it reasonable for us to worry about how a murderer is treated on death row when he had treated his victims much worse? How is it civilized to allow a murderer to live when he took a life and in many cases they show no remorse? All these come to my mind when I read his argument of why the death penalty should not be used. When I hear about people worrying about how the death row inmates are treated, I wonder if they ever stopped to think about how the murderers had treated their victims.

Throughout, Reimans argument he sets up evidences for each of his premises to show why the death penalty should not be practiced. Even though his premises' are true there is one that caused the conclusion to be false. The premises that was objected to, is the one that says "in refraining from imposing the death penalty, the state, by its vivid and impressive example, contributes to reducing our tolerance for cruelty and thereby fosters the advance of human civilization as we understand it". While objecting to this premise, examples of past murderers were presented. One of the murderers was prosecuted and one of them was not. By showing what the victims had suffered, both physically and psychologically, was much worse than what the death row inmates had to suffer from while awaiting his execution. I also show that if the States do not use the death penalty as a form of punishment then they are showing how they tolerate cruelty. As a matter of fact, by allowing a murderer live his life, the States are showing that there is no equal punishment for a hideous crime such as murder. In conclusion, the death penalty should be used as a form of punishment because the States could use it as an illustration of how they do not tolerate cruelty by giving the murderer what he so rightfully deserves.

References

Chua-Eoan, H. (2009). Top 25 Crimes of the Century. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from TIME:

http://www.time.com/time/2007/crimes/13.html

Lex talionis Definition. (2009). Retrieved December 3, 2009, from Dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lex+talionis

Reiman, J. (2007). Against the Death Penalty. In H. LaFollette, Ethics in Practice (pp. 554-561).

Blackwell Publishing.