Aleka LampruPHIL140- Hong Chen 0104 DisNovember 26th, 20132] Explain in detail what “proportional retributivism” is, according to Reiman. Summarize why, according to him, we, in the contemporary United States, should not employ the death penalty as a punishment even for those who are both convicted of and morally responsible for committing murder. Then offer a plausible objection to Reiman’s view that we should not do so. Would this objection be effective? Why or why not?Jeffrey H. Reiman argues in his "Justice Civilization, and the Death Penalty” paper that we should abolish the death penalty. Retributism is “the doctrine that the offender should be paid back with suffering he deserves because of the evil he has done, and lex talionis asserts that injury equivalent to that he imposed is what the offender deserves” (119). According to Reiman’s own view, “proportional retributism”—which is part of retributism itself—is a criminal justice theory that advocates the punishment of criminals in retribution for what harm they may have caused or inflicted. Reiman argues that proportional retributivism requires that punishments be proportional to crimes instead of using the basis of Lex Talionis—“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. In the modern United States, according to Reiman, we should not employ the death penalty as a punishment even for those who are both convicted of and morally responsible for committing murder, even “though the death penalty is a just punishment for murder” (115). Reiman believes that the death penalty is wrong even if it is a murderer’s just deserts. Much as it is horrible for a society to torture criminals, so it ishorrible for society to execute them. This is because execution involves intense psychological pain. The condemned prisoner foresees his death and knows that it will be brought about by other human beings (140). Knowing the exact time of your death is an atrocious circumstance to leave earth in. In addition, execution demonstrates a hardheartedness that society should completely avoid. Furthermore, he argues that the death penalty is not consistent with the “civilizing mission of modern states” (142). He explains that the progress in civilization is characterized by a lower tolerance for one’s own pain and that suffered by others; for this reason, we can say that growth in civilization generally marks human history, that a reduction in the horrible things we tolerate doing to our fellows (even when they deserve them) is part of this growth, and that “once the work of civilization is taken on consciously, it includes carrying forward and expanding this reduction” (136). Reiman insists that punishing a murderer with life in prison without the possibilityof parole, instead of with death as the lex talionis would demand, would meet the necessary condition he specifies for an acceptable alternative punishment. Although he does believe that capital punishment is an adequate and just punishment for 1st degree murder, we as a society should not engage in it because prison without the chance of parole is morally permissible. Reiman’s solution lies on the grounds that civilized people should look for a more humane way to make a statement to the guilty person. For example, if we are a civilized society, we would not want to torture other individuals, with that being said, we as a civilized society should not be compelled by somebody who tortures a victim into us becoming torturers as well. In addition, Reiman argues that We should have the right to substitute a more humane—yet serious—punishment.One of the points that Reiman addresses states that the psychological torture that the death row inmates have to endure is wrong as it is torture and the death penalty should not be used as a form of punishment. Reiman believes that giving inmates life in prison satisfies the concept of proportional retributivism. He discards the death penalty asa form of punishment because it does not keep up with how a civilized society ought to act. A plausible objection to Reiman’s view, that we should not engage in capital punishment lies on the statement that life in prison does not satisfy proportional retributivism. A protestor may argue that the convicted did not just kill one person, but caused great psychological pain in the families and friends of the victims, and should, therefore, endure the same psychological effects by receiving capital punishment. In addition, this objection further argues that life in prison without the possibility of parole does not serve as a just form of punishment as inmates still get to 24-hour healthcare and dental services; they still get to watch TV during their free time if they desire or exercise. These things do not seem like a severe punishment for someone who committed murder, depriving the victim from enjoying the basics and simple things in life as watching their favorite TV show or just doing their regular workout. According to this objection, through retributive justice, a criminal receives equal justice for their crime, and families can be comforted knowing that the criminal is off the streets forever and will not strike again. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered such losses and although it might take years, they will be consoled knowing that the murderer received what “he deserved”.I do not believe that this objection is effective. As Reiman states, inflicting lex talionis pain is not keeping up with a moral and civilized society. It’s barbaric to carryout capital punishment. Life imprisonment satisfies proportional retributivism because the convicted fellow does not have the freedom to do what he wants and is under 24-hoursurveillance; his every move is being watched. Reiman insists that punishing a murderer with life in prison without the chance of parole (instead of with death as the lex talionis would demand) would meet the necessary condition he specifies for an acceptable alternative punishment (130-131), and I agree with him as I do not believe the death penalty is a rational response to a critical situation. This is because I believe that to kill anindividual who has killed someone is basically to continue the cycle of violence. Lastly, by allowing capital punishment, the States are actually exhibiting that it is okay and acceptable to execute someone. In my opinion, it is time we abolish capital punishment asit has been