Final answer:
According to Reiman, we risk not preventing the murder of innocent people by retaining the death penalty because it does not effectively deter crime and poses a moral dilemma by potentially executing innocent individuals.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Reiman, we risk not preventing the murder of innocent people by retaining the death penalty because the current system has a paradoxical effect. It may make killing more attractive to those predisposed to murder by offering a kind of morbid fame or notoriety, while dissuading the general public from getting involved and potentially preventing crime due to fear of the consequences. Furthermore, the statistically insignificant deterrent effect of capital punishment, coupled with the risk of executing an innocent person, raises moral questions about the basis of our legality and morality.Anthropological reports suggest that in some tribal systems where a member of one tribe kills someone from another, a member from the killer's tribe, not necessarily the perpetrator, is killed in retribution, creating a powerful collective deterrent. Yet in our system, capital punishment has not been statistically proven to serve as an effective deterrent. Compounding this issue is the public's growing awareness of wrongful executions, such as the case of Claude Jones, who was executed based on flawed DNA evidence.
This awareness, along with advanced DNA testing revealing wrongful convictions, has led to a shift in public opinion against the death penalty and a reevaluation of its application.The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty citing retribution and deterrence. However, they have also placed limits on its application, such as prohibiting the execution of individuals with cognitive disabilities, those who were minors at the time of the crime, or those who did not intend to kill. As a result, the debate continues from both a legal and ethical standpoint regarding the retention of the death penalty.