“Thou shalt not kill” is an Old Testament element of semite religions — The Old Testament also tells people to kill someone who dares tend his field on the sabbath… Quoting scripture about this subject will get any Christian into very hot water… There are many, many crimes that are punishable by death according to God’s own voice.

And I am vehemently not a Christian. Dawkins and I share a vehement dislike for the nasty parts of religion and a genuine concern that people can find it in themselves to believe unprovable things…

Would you be willing to sacrifice a member of your family to help deter more murders if they were wrongfully convicted? (There is no evidence to support deterrence).

Speaking of family members, It is right to consider the victims family members but the criminal also has a family who may be just as innocent as the victim’s family….should they be made to suffer the loss of a family member?

Finally, I am against capital punishment simply because it makes the entire society murderers. (The official cause of death in an execution is “homicide”). An advanced civilization needs to rise above revenge.

In the example you cite, I would say that it should be a matter for private individuals to resolve, not for the state. I quite like Voltaire too. In his day, freedom and democracy were relatively untried so one should not expect everything he says to hold true.

I’d only concerned myself, until now, with trying to convince the alternative opinion that there are reasons for my opinion. That ID cards are wanted my the majority does not mean they’re right, only that the majority don’t yet know why they’re wrong!

I have to admit I don’t know enough about the US Constitution to know what limitations there are, but what is to stop the current President (whoever he may be) from tabling a Constitutional amendment abolishing free-speech or separation of Church and state?

The lack of a written constitution in the UK, along with our favoured-majority electoral system suggests to me that our current system is closer to the Will of the Majority system than the US system. You may have noticed, in that vein, my support of an elected Upper House and an elected Head of State.

I like the idea that the minority of one is not imposed upon, but what if imposition on the minority is required by not imposing on the majority (and, of course, vice versa)?

What if, in the modern example, a person in Religion A requires people in Religion B to not work on their holy day? One is imposed upon in their right to free religion and the other is imposed upon in their right to work…

Voltaire, as you mention him, would be most upset at the anti-homophobia, anti-racism and anti-religious-hatred laws that this government has introduced. That, for me, is enough to embrace what he says in that respect!

I was trying to focus on limitation of government, even if it is democratic. It may be true that the people want ID cards. You could argue that if the majority favour ID cards then we should all have them and they may only be opposed by the democratic process (i.e. changing public opinion). Alternatively you could argue that it is wrong for the majority to impose its will on any minority, even a minority of one. Thus, if one person opposes ID cards then the will of the majority should be defied.

Such constituional restraints on the will of the majority exist in the US system. The majority cannot declare America to be a Christian country, or impose laws against flag-burning. In this way the majority is defied, and in my view, it is a good thing.

The majority is who the democratically elected politician is there to represent. There’s no sense us pretending that democracy is not that way inclined. If politicians deny the majority their will then we are not governed with consent and that is the basis of all political systems based on the sovereignty of the people. The fact that the public is dismayed, chronically, by their politicians is probably a result of their will not being done.

I have faith in our judicial system in as much as I accept that a repeat-offender is genuinely guilty of a crime. The removal of the requirement to keep previous convictions from the jury has damaged that, however.

The US system, as you suggest, seems full of holes as evidenced by NHS Blog Doctor’s comment.