Let me see if I can explain further...
As a government governs by concensus, surely that means they have the consent of the people to take taxes from them?
Yes, they do -- the consent of a majority. But they won't have universal consent, and if a person says "forget it, I don't want to pay taxes," that person might end up in jail.
In other words, the State has the right to take money or property from someone who does *not* consent. An individual does not have that right.
My point there was that the State is entrusted/empowered to do things that individuals may not do. It's not a one-to-one analogy. So the statement that
If killing is wrong, then it's wrong for everyone, and that includes the State.
just doesn't hold up as a logical argument.
While it is definitely wrong for an individual to murder someone (I'm excluding self-defense, here), that says *nothing* about whether or not it is wrong for the State to do it as well.
On another point, I agree that sometimes innocent people are killed, which is a tragedy and should be strenuously avoided. However, it's also a tragedy if a murderer lives to get out of prison (parole, amnesty, escape) and kills again. You have to weigh both factors, IMO.
We agree that there will never be a perfect system -- human beings aren't really capable of creating 100% accurate systems, certainly not in something as very complex as crime and punishment. My reaction to that is that all we can do is try our hardest to get it right, as often as we possibly can, and accept that sometimes, it will fail.
(That's where the clemency plea is important, btw.)
PJ
