Civil asset forfeiture is incompatible with the definition of "state of law" (it's what you'd expect in some totalitarian banana republic, really).
Not allowing for same-sex marriage can not really be justified except for religious reasons. And if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law.
The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. The way it is practised in the US (in effect, the way it has to be practised to maintain any claim of being a civilised society) is extremely costly to the tax payer.
Assuming that killing innocent citizens is the amongst the worst things a government can do, the death penalty also can't be morally justified in anything other than a nearly perfect justice system (which the American justice system evidently is not).
Igglyboo|11 years ago
blakeja|11 years ago
pluma|11 years ago
Civil asset forfeiture is incompatible with the definition of "state of law" (it's what you'd expect in some totalitarian banana republic, really).
Not allowing for same-sex marriage can not really be justified except for religious reasons. And if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law.
The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. The way it is practised in the US (in effect, the way it has to be practised to maintain any claim of being a civilised society) is extremely costly to the tax payer.
Assuming that killing innocent citizens is the amongst the worst things a government can do, the death penalty also can't be morally justified in anything other than a nearly perfect justice system (which the American justice system evidently is not).
Which point exactly are you disagreeing with?