The idea of equal justice has been part of the law since time immemorial; however as the centuries have passed, morality has dug its roots into the justice system and changed the consequences of crimes. In the past criminals were flogged and hung dependent on their crimes because of the idea of Lex Talionis; this is the idea that the punishment should be equivalent to the crime committed to imbue justice to the victim. If a victim was raped, then their assailant should be raped as well; if someone was murdered, then their murderer should also be put to death in order to be given an equal and just punishment. Since the ancient times, morality has dug its roots into how we deal with criminals which eventually led to our current justice system. However there are some crimes that some feel a lifetime sentence does not serve justice. For example one could be a mass murderer and have killed multiple people but some feel that a life sentence in jail does not make up for the life lost. The idea of the death penalty goes hand in hand with “an eye for an eye”, also known as the law of retaliation which some feel is the only way to bring balance in the world of crime. Jeffrey Reiman goes on to discuss the idea of the death penalty and the complications that arise with this issue. Jeffrey Reiman’s argument basically sums up into a general idea; if a crime is committed the punishment must be equivalent to the crime, if the punishment must be equivalent to the crime it must be modified to be morally applicable, if a crime is committed the punishment must be modified to be morally applicable. We all know that there are crimes in the world which are too disastrous for the idea of a lifetime sentence, but we also know that it is still morally wrong to play the Grim Reaper on another’s life. However the idea that an eye for an eye is not as black and white as everyone thinks. For example if there was a mass murderer then how would he be pe