My position on Death Penalty

My position about Death Penalty In the debate over Capital Punishment, the opponents conclude that we should abolish capital punishment because there is no difference in deterrence o crimes with or without capital punishment. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that death penalty is as justifiable punishment for crimes because it maintains retribution supplies in an independent moral justification. In this essay, I will conclude that I agree with Jeffrey Reiman that capital punishment should be abolished because the deterrence impact of a penalty rises without the limit in proportion to the fearfulness of the penalty. In the article title, “The Folly of Capital Punishment,” Jeffrey Reiman concludes that we should abolish capital punishment. The deterrence impact of a penalty rises without the limit in proportion to the fearfulness of the penalty. Reiman states that good reasons for doubting common sense, it does not follow that the more feared penalty will deter more than the less feared unless we know the less feared penalty is not fearful enough to deter everyone who can be deterred. All common sense indicates that the deterrence impact increases with fearfulness of penalty within a certain normally experienced range. Reiman concludes that if there is a deterrent effect of not executing, it follows that we risk innocent lives either way; it seems the only reasonable course of action is to refrain from imposing what we know. No injustice is done to actual or potential victims if we refrain from imposing the death penalty, Reiman states that there are good moral reasons for refraining. Reiman infers that placing torture in this category broadcasts the message that we as a society judge torturing so horrible a thing to do to a person that we refuse to do it even when deserved. We may still be justified in doing it if it is necessary to prevent something worse. Civilization brings increased power to prevent or reduce pain;