For my final philosophy paper, I chose to talk about the “answer to van den Haag” by Jeffrey H. Reiman. Reiman challenges the argument made by Haag’s defense of the death penalty by presenting arguments based on deterrence, retribution, and prevention of recidivism. However, Reiman challenges these arguments, arguing for the abolition of the death penalty on moral, practical, and philosophical grounds. This paper aims to delve into Reiman's response to van den Haag's arguments, examining the key points of contention and evaluating the strengths. Reiman argues that the death penalty accomplishes retributive justice, which is a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation, but does not help better or further society. One of Reiman's main arguments against the death penalty is based on a moral critique of retribution. He contends that the desire for retribution, or "just…show more content… He highlights that the death penalty is only taking us back in time to when we used to parade convicts through the streets beaten and battered but over time morally it was not okay and if more people saw the death penalty in action they would also feel as if it went against the morally. Reiman talks about this in the “civilization”, pain, and justice” portion of his writings. He argues that the desire for retribution perpetuates a cycle of violence and fails to address the underlying causes of crime. Instead, Reiman advocates for a more humane and rehabilitative approach to justice, one that prioritizes the prevention of harm and the promotion of social welfare. He argues that as a society we should aim to reduce pain on one another, but growing in the ability to communicate and interact with people which will help us better empathize and interact with each other is only going to continue this cycle instead of taking the time to rehabilitate
