Response to Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty, Essay Example

Introduction

The paper reviewed below is arguing that the death penalty should be abolished in the United States on the grounds that punishing crimes is a “part of the civilizing mission of modern states”. The statement above will be examined based on its argument, reasoning and justification through research and statistical data, included in the article examining the effectiveness of death penalty and the moral justification. Further, the author of the current study would question whether a civilized modern state cannot have an institution of capital punishment in its legal system. The authors would like to argue that there is no contradiction between the ideology of a modern state and capital punishment; therefore, it could be a part of the legal system in the United States.

Evaluation of Ideas

Reiman indicates that there is a question whether retributivism is an approach that “does no more than sanctify the victim’s desire to hurt the offender back”. I believe that the author misses an important point here regarding the purpose of capital punishment as simple revenge. While he states that the main role of capital punishment is to “giving satisfaction to his victim”, this is not the case. Indeed, victims are more concerned about potential future victims’ welfare and are rational enough to know that hurting the offenders or taking their lives away is not going to bring their loved ones back. The point Reiman misses when talking about retributism  is the question of the purpose of capital  punishment not on the individual but the social level. Therefore, looking at long term results, the existence of capital punishment in the society, not its impact on the convicted should be examined.

Further, the author quotes the “golden rule mandates”. It is true that it states not to do things to others that you don’t want others to do to you, but is this mandate valid for the state as an entity or only people as individuals?  The role of victims here is much smaller than Reiman anticipates: they do not make decisions on their own and certainly do not take revenge with their own hand: the state takes on this responsibility, representing victims. The role of the legal system within the state should be to create justice and prevent crimes. If the judicial system fails this purpose, it fails all the citizens in the state. The author is mistaken in his argument when he states that people should be treated equally, and this is true, but only if they did not violate other people’s rights. That is why the state should ensure that all people have the right to life. Capital punishment is a preventive method to ensure that this role of the government is fulfilled. While people originally have equal rights, murderers, by violating others’ rights for life threaten their own, and they are aware of the consequences. While murderers are aware of the consequences of their actions when they commit the crime, victims usually have no idea that they are about to become murdered. They do not have a choice, while murderers do.

The last argument the author makes is that “reduction in the horrible things we do to our fellows is an advance in civilization as long as our lives are not thereby made more dangerous”. While Reiman argues that capital punishment is one of the “horrible things” we do to other people, he doesn’t consider the number of murders committed in the United States each year. If we weigh up the options of reducing crime and murder rates, abolishing capital punishment would bring down murder rates by around 200 in five years, according to some authors (Fein, 2007).  While if, according to research (Van Den Haag, 1985), based on the deterring effect of death penalty, the state cannot reduce the number of murders than refusing to punish those who commit murders knowing the legal consequences. As Van Den Haag (1985) states: “I can not accept the abolitionist belief that there is no crime horrible enough to deserve capital punishment. On the contrary, there are far more crimes that do than there are death sentences. All the more reason not to spare the few who do receive it.”

Conclusion

The authors state that abolishing capital punishment makes the society fairer and less violent. This is not true, and certainly abolishing capital punishment does reduce the state’s capacity to deter crime. The argument above has clearly proven that:

• The main purpose of capital punishment is not revenge but mainly a system that keeps the society in order.
• Abolishing capital punishment would not result in significant decrease in murders, but the capital punishment being a part of the juridical system would.

References

Van Den Haag, E. (1985) Death or Life, New Arguments Against Capital Punishment?, National Review, Feb. 8, 1985

Fein, B. (2007) “It’s Time to Check the Balance of Power: Congress Must Rein in Bush’s Abusive Actions,”San Francisco Chronicle, July 29, 2007