1. The retributivist principle “the offender deserves and his victim has the right to impose suffering on the offender equal to that which he imposed on the victim

2. Reiman: Assuming this principle is true, it does not follow that we ought always give out equal punishment. We don’t rape rapists or torture torturers. Sometimes equal punishment is impossible. Multiple murderers, for example

3. R: You cannot infer that a punishment ought to be performed just because it is “justly deserved” There are other moral considerations Civilization is marked by “lower tolerance for our own pain and that of others” By abolishing the DP we continue this civilizing trend

4. Is execution horrible enough? Is it really, like torture, something we should not engage in? Execution is “the most psychologically painful of deaths” Forseen death is worse than accidental death

5. Like torture, the DP says is wrong because of what it says about us, it demonstrates a kind of “hardheartedness” Society “ought not parade”

6. DP does not deter Van Den Haag argued that because death is more feared, it is more of a deterent. Reiman says this does not follow. As long as the punishment is bad enough to deter, extra fearfulness is not going to help Criminals have good reason to think they may die in commiting a crime, yet this does not deter them. DP would not add to this.