Analysis Of Jeffrey Reiman's 'Against The Death Penalty'

I do not believe it would have been just for the state to pardon Tucker’s crimes due to the moral injustice she was responsible for. In Jeffrey Reiman’s article “Against the Death Penalty” he analyzes the principle of lex talionis, which states that one who has harmed another should be penalized to the same or equivalent extent, or as the common phrase goes: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Reiman arrives at the conclusion that there is an equality between human beings by examining the implications of lex talionis, which implies one thinks of other’s pain to be as great as his or her own. Additionally, Reiman explores the Kantian belief that an individual permits the universal form of the objective which guides his action. For example, if an individual kills someone, then he or she authorizes the concept that he or she may be killed, and in doing so there is no injustice done. Thus, this belief also endorses the equality of individuals and helps grant credibility towards Reimans claim. By using Kant’s theory as a basis for his argument, Reiman asserts the concept of lex talionis “affirms both the equality and rationality of human beings and for that reason [lex talionis] is just” (Reiman). Therefore, I believe it would be unjust to grant Tucker a pardon for her crimes because doing so would lose the equality between human beings. Tucker deserved a grave punishment for the brutal murder of two people, but Tucker did not deserve to die.
Did Tucker deserve the Death Penalty?
I believe only the most heinous of criminals deserve the Death Penalty. That is, people like Charles Manson or Osama Bin Laden who would likely kill again en masse if given the chance. The early 20th century philosopher Don Marquis, in his essay “Why Ab...

... middle of paper ...

...must face the consequences of his or her actions each day as long as he or she is alive. As a result, I believe life imprisonment without the option of parole is a similar and comparable punishment to the death penalty.
Arguments for Capital Punishment
A popular belief among those who advocate Capital Punishment is that the Death Penalty deters future murderers. However, there is no statistical evidence that proves this is in fact effective. Furthermore, there is no evidence which states the death penalty is any more effective in deterring murder than life imprisonment. Deterrence is also at its most persuasive when it takes place soon after a crime. For example, a child learns not to put his or her hand on a hot stove top because it results in immediate pain and a burnt finger. Because the death penalty takes years to be put into effect deterrence is less effective.