The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

Introduction: Job David Guerrero lived in downtown San Diego when he was suspected of attacking five homeless men with serious upper-body injuries. Two of which were found dead with their bodies set on fire. Guerrero was linked to the murders form eyewitness testimony and video camera footage. Guerrero should deserve the death penalty under the act of which he commits a murder. This policy of action is morally justified through Lex Talionis, Kantian ethics, Gelernter and the social contract. Although arguments such as Jeffrey Reiman’s might oppose the death penalty and support lesser punishment, my position is a stronger alternative.

Reason 1: According to Kant, one should be punished only because one has committed a crime, and the level of

One most note that he accepts the principle of Lex Talionis, and even if the death penalty may be just for Guerrero we should avoid it because lesser punishment is not unjust. He argues that the death penalty has not been proven to deter future crime, and if it were effective enough then we would not be facing where we are. Police chiefs also second that the death penalty does not deter crime. Reiman’s strongest proposition against the death penalty is lesser punishment. Life imprisonment is substantially a better deterrent than the death penalty. Aside from the psychological pain execution imposes on beings, Reiman argues that it is not consistent with the purpose of societal progress (Reiman, 5). “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…” Reiman would go on to further object the death penalty due to its bias towards minorities and the poor. In this case, one may agree with Reiman given that Guerrero was living in apartments for the poor. The law would likely not favor