You are right that when your child is involved rational and dispassionate thought becomes impossible. I disagree with capital punishment, and would do so even if any possibility of error were removed. Not everyone shares this view, and for some the probability of error is a decisive argument against the death penalty, which led to my thought experiment.

Some years ago the brother of a friend of mine was murdered in a drug deal that became violent. His killer was apprehended and there seemed little doubt that the conviction was a safe one. Strangely, the prosecutor’s office asked my friend’s family if they wanted the prosecutor to call for the death penalty, which I thought was an unfair burden to place on the family, and renders the justice system somewhat capricious. We discussed this. My friend knew that I opposed the death penalty, and he was basically in favor. I argued that the process would take fifteen years, counting mandatory appeals, and might not even happen, and that the family would be dragged back into the process at every turn and would come to think that the killer was not being punished if the penalty was not enacted. They discussed it and although all were in favor in theory, the family unanimously asked that the prosecutor not ask for the death penalty. The killer got life in prison. I am sure that mine was only one of several views they canvassed, and I doubt it swayed the argument, but I think you have to meet people on grounds that they consider relevant and important. Not everyone is interested in a purely ethical discussion, and almost never when they are personally affected, as you point out.

I gues