Arguing Against Capital Punishment

In the debate over capital punishment, the opponents argue that capital punishment should not be practiced because it has a civilizing effect and practicing capital punishment has do deterrent effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporters argue that capital punishment should not be abolished because it is just retribution and has a deterrent effect. In this paper, I will argue that capital punishment should not be practiced. In the article titled, “The Folly of Capital Punishment,” Jeffrey Reiman concludes that capital punishment is less just. Reiman has four arguments against capital punishment. Reiman states that an argument for capital punishment being a deterrent would have to be based on speculation, as there is no solid evidence that capital punishment would deter more people than the idea of a lengthy or life imprisonment. Reiman then states that if the situation is examined using the social sciences, they reveal no difference in deterrent effect between life imprisonment and capital punishment. Reiman also mentions that, because of the high number of privately owned guns and the fact that police also carry guns, a criminal already chooses to face higher chances of death when they break the law, so it becomes difficult to imagine capital punishment being a deterrent for law breakers. Reiman also makes a response to Van Den Haag’s deterrence argument. He says that if you suppose that there is a deterrent effect from practicing capital punishment, but there is also a deterrent effect from not practicing capital punishment and performing one weakens the deterrent effect on the other, then performing either one will still put lives at risk, but choosing not to perform capital punishment can spare at least one life. Reiman also states that capital punishment is in a class of horrible things comparative to torture. He shows that capital punishment, although it is not intended to cause pain, causes an amount of psychological pain that becomes a