In the context of the reinstatement of capital punishment in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court argued that it was no longer administered arbitrarily and capriciously, and that it served the social objectives of deterrence and retribution. Begin by explaining Louis Pojman’s account of retributivism. Then, consider Jeffrey Reiman’s objection that even if a convicted murderer deserves to die, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the state should execute him. Do you find this objection plausible? How does Reiman challenge the retributive justification for capital punishment?
Next, explain the best bet argument and the common–sense argument for the deterrent role of capital punishment. Briefly explain these concepts. Subsequently, examine the objections raised by Reiman and Hugo Bedau against the common–sense argument, aiming to undermine the best bet argument. Do you think Reiman and Bedau’s objections successfully challenge the arguments put forth by Pojman in favor of capital punishment’s deterrent and retributive roles?
Us