On that last I agree with Doug.

I think what he believes about state killing is wrong, but that's how it goes. There's a disagrement, and no reason for any persinal antagonism.

He'd said that in principle he believed in capital punishment and accepted that this in practice sometimes means that innocent people get killed by the agents of tyhe community. I pointed out that had to include the hypothetical case where the innocent person involved was his nearest and dearest (or indeed himself).

There are only two honourable and consistent ways out of the implied dilemma. One would be to withdraw the support for capital punishment. The other is to accept that the innocent prisoner in the death cell might be yourself, and still say it's right.

As I expected Doug took the latter option. There are a lot of people who would try to wriggle out of the dilemma by claiming that it's possible to avoid such miscarriages of justice. I think that amounts to wilful blindness.