Jeffrey H. Reiman is against the death penalty. In his article called “Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty,” Reiman argues that the death penalty is like torture. Reiman states, “it would not be right for us to beat assaulters, rape rapists, or torture torturers, even though it were their just deserts and even if this were the only way to make them suffer as much as they had made their victims suffer” (Reiman 144). It may be just to murder a murderer, but it does not make it morally right. Just like his example of raping a rapist, it is not morally right. The idea of an eye for an eye is not justice. Human beings have progressed to some form of a civilized society. It is beneath a civilized society to execute prisoners.

Execution is horrible like torture. Torture has intense pain and the spectacle of one individual getting subjected to another human being. Persecution is like killing a defenseless person, so the death penalty is wrong. Reiman states,

To complete the argument, however, I must show that execution is horrible enough to warrant its inclusion alongside torture. Against that it will be said that execution is not especially horrible since it only hastens a fate that is inevitable for us [....] I believe we view torture as especially awful because of its features, which also characterize execution: intense pain and the spectacle of one human being completely subject to the power of another (Reiman 144).

The death penalty, to Reiman, removes humanity and makes them subhuman. Taking someone’s humanity away is hypocritical. It is beneath a civilized society to take away their humanity.

The psychological pain per Reiman is cruel and unusual. Death is constantly hanging over the prisoner’s head at every moment. Victims of the murder committed did not know they would die but these prisoners on death row constantly think about it. Therefore, it is cruel and unusual. It is different from life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is not as costly to the offender. Life imprisonment can be ignored. Prisoners can avoid and take a break from the pain by performing other actions like playing cards. However, corporal punishment is not morally permissible. It cannot be ignored because it is constantly looming over the prisoner’s thoughts.

Van den Haag has a common-sense argument that says, “executing murderers is valid [because they] will find that the case proves more than they bargained to occur. In the absence of conclusive evidence on the relative deterrent impact of the death penalty versus life imprisonment, we must follow common sense” (Reiman 147). The common-sense argument is a stretch according to Reiman. He objects to Van den Haag’s argument. The reason behind it is because the government should continue to use torture because it is more efficient than the death penalty. It would deter more potential murderers to have death-by-torture. Therefore, Van den Haag must ignore common sense and not impose the death penalty or use death-by-torture.

There is a similarity between drone strikes and the death penalty. Drone strikes subject thousands of innocent people to die for the sake of killing a dozen terrorists. The death penalty does the same thing. Innocent people are killed because the law failed to see their innocence until they were brutally executed through corporal punishment.

Capital punishment is not found to be a form of justice. Regardless of the cost, maldistribution, or the fact that corporal punishment takes the lives of innocent people, the death penalty is morally impermissible because executing the guilty is not always seen as an act of justice. By killing the guilty right away, the criminal cannot be properly held accountable for his crime and allows the murderer an easier way out.