Is there a crime that would make the death penalty justifiable?

So, you have no reason for thinking that a person who advocates capital punishment should be prepared to do it himself, despite the fact that whether he is prepared to do it himself has nothing whatever to do with whether the capital punishment is deserved. You just feel that is so. Is that it? Well, I do not think that is so, and I just gave a reason for my view. (Why shouldn't I eat the chicken if I can't kill it? As a matter of fact, I eat all kinds of meat I don't kill, and would not want to kill. And so, I suppose, do you. What has my ability to kill a chicken have to do with my eating it? Nothing, so far as I can see).

Then I would say you have not earned your right to eat meat or have an opinion on capital punishment. Just like the politician who cries war war war and avoids his personal danger from it. We are not islands of independent views with no consequences of them.

Yes, I know you would say that. You have already said it several times. But I don't know why you say it. Could it not be that it is the right thing to go to war, but a politician who votes for it, does not want to participate in the war? What would one have to do with the other? The politician may be quite right that there should be war, but may still not want to join the war. That may (or may not) reflect on the politician. It depends on the circumstances. But his vote for war may be right.

Then all i can say is we disagree, I did not say attend the war but by means avoid the danger of his decision. I know many who would have other sons fight but not theirs.

If some depraved animal molested one of my children (Grandchildren in my case) I would have absolutely no hesitation in personally dispensing with the monster, if the law of the land allowed it. I do not view this as an act of murder but the act removed of a base beast from society

If you won't kill the chicken, then eating the chicken is hypocritical as hell. I should think this obvious.

Well, he might be too old, or too ill, or be more important to the war effort than to go to fight. But the important fight is that the politicians refusal (if that is what it is) to participate, or to have his sons participate, would reflect on him personally, perhaps. Depending on the circumstances. But it certainly would not, in any way, show that his vote for war, and his agitation for war, was not the right things to do. The war might very well be justified even if the politician's behavior is suspect. Your attack is on him, not his vote for war.

If you won't kill the chicken, then eating the chicken is hypocritical as hell. I should think this obvious.

Even if that is true (and I see no reason to think it is) so what? That it is hypocritical of you to eat chicken shows nothing about whether it is right or wrong to eat chicken. And if it is hypocritical of you to support a war in which you or your sons don't fight, that is no reason to think that your support of the war is unjustified. Hypocrisy reflects on the agent, not what he does.

If you refuse to accept personal involvement in the decisions of someone else's life then you are acting without commitment. Why divorce yourself from important decisions your community take. If we all faced them with a certain involvement then idle input would be avoided. You cant be a soldier without the concept of killing the enemy so why say capital punishment is for others to execute when you are party to that decision.

Is there a crime that would make the death penalty justifiable?

Its a good question. But looking at the example you gave and the responses thus far, its as if folks are looking for a justification for the death penalty aside from ethical standards - as if such a thing might be justified moreso the more heinous, outlandish and brutal the supposed crimes are. Perhaps this is so, I guess that depends on where your ethical standards lie.

I prefer to look at it in a more analytical sense; the reason being, if I look at it from such a purely-emotional, tit-for-tat, "make me madder"-basis then I could justify a lot. Since this is philosophy, and this is an ethical question, I'd have to say "No, there isn't", based on my own ethical standards.

... not because some crimes are OK to go unaddressed
... not because I don't feel the rage anyone else does

But because
[INDENT]1) Its wantonly inconsistent to profess "Human Life is Paramount therefore I'm going to take one"
2) No correction, no "righting the wrong" takes place for the damage done when someone is executed
3) If we say it's ok to administer death to someone we believe has done wrong, we have to be OK occasionally executing innocent people. This is because...

• Any system of justice invented would be instituted by humans
  
• Humans are fallible
  
• Therefore virtually any guilty verdict derived from such a system is subject to error
  

[/INDENT][INDENT]It's never OK, in my mind, to purposefully execute someone based on a system I know to be flawed; which can't be escaped.
[/INDENT]In any case, If I strip out my ethical standards I could justify the death penalty based on: Protecting others, Vengeance, Rage, Disgust or even simply Protecting Others. But from an ethical standpoint, no.

Thanks

Capital punishment is an act of uncertainty but the question raised is, if for certain you know a certain individual murdered, say a child, should he be executed? I could say, do certain crimes go beyond our feelings of ethics. Public anger for the most hideous of crimes is never satisfied. So is justice ethical at all, or is it valued by our concept of it. We are happy to see a man rot for sixty years in prison but not hang, is that for our ethical expression or our sense of justice.

That you are "acting without commitment" does not mean that what you did was not right. I don't know how many ways I can point out that your action is one thing, and your motive for acting is a different thing. You are judged (in part) by your motive. But your action is not judged by your motive.

What has all this to do with what we have been discussing?

I dont care if it was right or wrong, if it is done without commitment it has no value. Its easy as hell to say hang them high, till the question arises , will you hang them?

---------- Post added 01-02-2010 at 04:26 PM ----------
.

If I vote for war, and if I don't let my sons go to war, my vote has no value? What does that mean? You think that even if my vote is right, it has no value? What then does it mean to say it is right? How can it be right (or wrong) and yet have no value?

Simple because I say so. I dont value anyone's uninterested views. Interest is, having to face those decisions with personal involvement. You can say you dont agree but that is of no consequence to me. Anyone who tells me capital punishment is ethical without the will to actually act on that view, has no rights to make their views affect the law.

Oh, You don't value something. Sorry. I was under the impression that you were talking about what has value. Not what you happen to value. I did not know we were debating about your personal feelings. Well, so far as my personal feelings are concerned, I do think that capital punishment under some circumstances is just jazzy. In fact, the very thought of it gives me a thrill running up and down my right leg (as Chris Matthews said about Obama's speech). I just never knew you would be interested in that sort of thing.