Rallying Behind Reiman

By Anthony J. Colello

John Stuart Mill writes, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion" (522). This quote epitomizes my personal contentions regarding the work of Jeffrey H. Reiman entitled "Justice Civilization, and the Death Penalty". I contend that despite Reiman's convincing argument calling for the abolition of the Death Penalty, there are areas in which his piece is susceptible to counter arguments of great validity, and he does not combat these counters sufficiently. In recognizing and countering these omissions, I seek to solidify and improve Reiman's argument, which I almost fully agree with, that the Death Penalty should be abolished. I only wish to slightly amend Reiman's view in order to allow for the implementation of the Death Penalty in severe and extreme cases. This alteration will allow the government to maintain ultimate authority in dealing with criminals, and consequently, control the population's involvement in personally exacting justice.

The first of Reiman's four major omissions arises from his cursory look at the grief felt by murder victims' families. His intense focus on the overall societal gain garnered from refraining from executing criminals, clearly subordinates any concern for the well being of the victims' families. Reiman argues that, "Progress in civilization is characterized by a lower tolerance for one's own pain and that suffered by others" (137), and yet he seems unconcerned with the pain and suffering of these grieving families. He contests that in order to further this "civilizing progress", we must, as a society, resist the temptation to indulge in retributive vengeance through execution. If we are able to do this, he believes that we are lessening the pain of a member of society, the convicted murderer, and thus furthering the "progress" of society as a whole. I avow that this argument ignores the fact that, in many cases, the families of murder victims feel as if they need to see the convicted murderer executed in order to obtain closure and consequently, reach some state of peace. The question then surfaces, are we to place the "Civilizing Progress" above the interests of the people who have been the most directly affected by these horrible crimes? Reiman seems to suggest that the suffering of the families is a necessary sacrifice for the betterment of society, but I contend that these families should not have to bear the brunt of the emotional burden alone simply to further this progression towards civilization. I believe that we should be paying a greater amount of attention to these suffering people than Reiman's argument allows. Nonetheless, it is possible to aide these families while limiting the use of the Death Penalty. If society were to offer positive outlets for these people to discuss their grievances and help in the healing process, then they may not be compelled to so readily seek the Death Penalty as revenge for their murdered loved one. Therefore, by simply not ignoring the problem of grieving families, we have successfully worked to heal their wounds, while limiting the use of the Death Penalty.

Reiman maintains that given our discomfort with torture, we should render Capital Punishment as unacceptable because of the many similarities shared by torture and lethal injection. Upon further examination, I hold that this point seems to lack validity because of a number of details which were overlooked. There is unquestionably a difference between confining imprisonment and total subjugation, as is clearly stated by Reiman. If a person robs a bank it does not give the police the right to torture him. The condemned man has in some respect consented to being held in prison, but not to being tortured. In order to be an American citizen, one must abide by the laws and regulations set forth by the government. If a human being capable of rational delineation chooses to disregard these laws, he or she does so knowing full well that there are consequences to those actions. Reiman contends that just as it is unlawful to torture people who have tortured, it is unjust to kill killers. He argues that we should not institute the Death Penalty because just like in a torture situation, the condemned person is completely subjugated. Here again, he does not comment on the issue of consent. Many proponents of the death penalty would argue that the murderer, just like the robber, has consented to receive the consequences for his actions that are ascribed by law. Therefore, if the law calls for execution as an equitable form of punishment for the murderer, Reiman must leave aside his emotional reaction to the idea of total subjugation, and allow for the execution which society believes the murderer deserves. In response, I believe Reiman would be justified in explaining that whether or not the law holds that this killer "deserves" this punishment or not, society needs take a step towards civilization and look past desert. I am again in agreement with Reiman on this point, but I believe that by not applying his previous notion of desert to the issue of the death penalty, he undermines the potential force of his own argument.

I contend that Reiman's definition of the "progress of civilization" is quite logical despite its questionable application in certain areas. I have come to this opinion by evaluating the different aspects of life in which our culture seeks improvement. In each of these areas, I discovered that the universal purpose of each improvement is to make life easier and more comfortable than it is presently, or in other words, to "lower tolerance for one's own pain and that suffered by others" (137). Take for instance the most obvious example, the advancements being made in the medical field. Each new discovery is instituted in order to relieve the pain of a suffering patient. In other areas of development, the link may not be as blatant, but each discovery in some way contributes to an attempt to make the world a place as free from pain and suffering as possible. This being said, it is important to look at the relationship between this belief and the consequences of utilizing the death penalty. Reiman argues that it cannot be disputed that executing a human being does nothing to further the "progress of civilization" because it does not lessen people's tolerance of pain and suffering. Here, is where I raise my only objection. It seems as though he again forgets the victim's families. As I have stated before, it has been reported that many of these family members wish to see the murderer executed in order to try and ease their pain and bring closure to their loss. If this does, in fact, help them to deal with the loss of their loved one, it could be argued that the execution is somehow "lowering the tolerance level" for that individual's personal pain. Consequently, it seems as though the execution would then square with Reiman's definition of "progress". Although his inattention to victims' families constitutes a costly omission, I nonetheless would agree with the response with which I believe Reiman would counter; that despite the personal gain wrought by the individual family member through retribution, society as a whole benefits far more from the abstention from execution. This being the case, we should opt for the solution that allows the greatest amount of benefit for the greatest number of people. I believe that we should abstain from execution whenever possible, only implementing it when dire and extreme circumstances necessitate this course of action.

The fourth and final objectionable omission emerges from Reiman's over generalization of the rationality of convicted murderers. When discussing the possible deterrent effects of Capital Punishment, Reiman assumes that the murderer is a full-functioning, rational, what society would call a "normal" human being. This seems to me to be an egregious mistake. According to a "Human Rights Watch Report" conducting in October of 2003, "One in six prisoners in the US is considered 'mentally ill'". Granted there are situations in which "normal" citizens are complicit in the act of murder, but it seems to me that there are a large number of murderers who are not at all "normal". In fact, murderers often have biological malfunctions, or have been deeply psychologically scarred by traumatic experiences, each of which would alter the way in which the brain works. These cases are not accounted for by Reiman's arguments. Reiman assumes that each of these murderers is a rational human being capable of delineating between consequences. Conversely, I contend that this disregards the blatant truth that many murderers have some outside force contributing to their inability to be rational. This is not to say that the rational murderer does not exist, I just find it highly irresponsible to assume, as Reiman does, that this type of rationality prevails in the majority of killers.

Though his argument lacks thoroughness in certain areas, I find it hard to reject Reiman's plea for humanity. The "progression of civilization" to a more humane society which is sensitive to the pain and suffering of its inhabitants is quite attractive. If our society were able to abolish the death penalty and still maintain a respected and properly feared system of justice that would deter further bloodshed, I would be in full support. Unfortunately, I believe the reality is that it is necessary to maintain the death penalty in order to preserve the faith which people have in the legal system's ability to exact justice. As Mr. Justice Stewart explains, "In part, capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes rather than self-help to vindicate their wrongs" (118). Therefore, I hold that it is necessary to maintain the death penalty only for use in extreme cases in order to maintain order and protect our citizens.

Works Cited

Arthur, John, ed. Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005.
Perlmutter, Martin. "Desert and Capital Punishment." Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. Ed. John Arthur. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005. 124-131.
Reiman, Jeffrey H. "Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty." Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. Ed. John Arthur. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005. 136-141.
Van Den Haag, Ernest. "Refuting Reiman." Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. Ed. John Arthur. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005.142-145.
Van Den Haag, Ernest. "The Ultimate Punishment." Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. Ed. John Arthur. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005. 131-136.

Anthony J. Colello is a senior at Santa Clara University. He presented this paper at the third annual Student Ethics Research Conference May 10, 2006.