Some very good points, Dave. And they speak directly to DtG's question of whose legal system is superior.

DtG -- There are moral and ethical tests that can determine the superiority of a "justice" system. The pivotal point is the rule of law -- as opposed to kangaroo courts and run-amok street executions of the Taliban and like organizations. I can't see how anyone could oppose the death penalty and in the same breath argue there is not something morally superior in codified law which can be known by all. You would prefer -- or at least support -- the Khamer Rouge or Taliban or Nazi justice systems as on the same moral and ethical footing?

A society has the right to lay down its own laws and enforce them. On that, as far as I can tell, we agree. But the public must know what the rules are and the state must enforce them uniformly or you have chaos. If the law says "You kill, you die," and someone deliberately sets out to ignore that law, how is it murder to enforce your own law against murder? If someone killed another (with or without justification) and then government agents sneaked into his house and killed him without due process, that would be murder. If it gathers evidence, builds a case and gives the accused due process to defend himself, a guilty verdict and execution is in a different moral category.

As for my response to being lumped into the category of "blind prejudice," yes -- I took offense at that. But far be it from me to introduce sarcasm into such a learned discussion....

cheers,

david