Scott said: "Remember, there is a difference between murder and defensive homicide."

In some instances, you cannot separate the two: in war, for example.

"I want the murderer to be incarcerated until, if ever, rehabilitated. What I do not understand is people who actually support murder in theory."

Well, aside from the "murder as a deterrent" argument, which I believe has been shown to be invalid, proponents of "legal" murder decide, by whatever means, who can or cannot be rehabilitated. If it is decided that they cannot be rehabilitated, they are considered a dispensible detriment to society.

Now, if we had reliable scientific means to determine who or who not can be rehabilitated, this argument would have some merit. But as it is, the decision as to who should die is made primarily on moral, political and economic grounds, e.g., how despicable the crime was and how many criminals we can afford to incarcerate.

However, as Nick suggested, when a superficial value is placed on life, the decision to take it is easily made.

Yes, Scott has given contradictory statements. He said he "adamantly opposes all murder," which he defined as "the offensive, intentional killing of another," and yet later he said, "I don't oppose all forms of homicide." Ergo, some offensive intentional killing is acceptable?

Scott (speaking of war): "I do not think unintentional collateral damage is murder, and I recognize it as a fact of war even in the few the types of wars I would support."

How convenient... if it's "not murder" then there is no limit to how far it can be taken? At what point does "unintentional" become "intentional" - killing 2 - 10 - 200 - 1000 innocent people? What is your definitive cut off point? Or is it enough for the perpetrator, who, say, launched an attack drone, to simply claim that the killing of innocent bystanders was unintentional?

"I'd say that the expectation of someone rehabilitating after an execution would be slim at best."

And I suppose that, according to Juice, there'll be no rehabilitation in the afterlife either. It's straight to Eternal Damnation for them then - the Christian Fundamentalist afterlife version of capital punishment.

Human beings are fallible, innocent people can be and have been condemned to death for crimes they did not commit. Is this not reason enough to abolish capital punishment?