News flash: Laws are not about morality. They are about behavior.
Being a "person of conscience" only means he was doing what he thought was right. Doesn't have anything to do with legal behavior. Many violent people are "people of conscience".
If you don't want people to legislate morality, then don't be surprised when there is no morality in your legislation.
Many people like to have justice in their legal system, but it doesn't make so just because you called it that.
Laws and morality are not mutually exclusive, but the presence of one doesn't require the other. Justice is where laws and morality meet. Did we apply the laws and was the outcome morally fitting? But if you don't have both, you can't have justice.
"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice." [1]
There are many dictionaries which define "justice" as having a component of fairness or morality, as opposed to a merely mechanical sort of rules-based accounting of the Law. They are not hard to find, nor is it challenging to find reasonable (non-YE Creationist) people who might agree with those definitions. Even Websters, which does not mention morality, does include fairness. And, here [2] is a thing that calls itself "Law.com" and cites "The Peoples' Law Dictionary" and also includes "moral rightness" in its definition of "justice".
Do you enjoy these little time-wasting sophist nit-picks?
> Do you enjoy these little time-wasting sophist nit-picks?
I enjoy people backing up their arguments with logic and reason instead of FUD and rhetoric.
If you're trying to prove a certain point you should be careful that your arguments are tailored to the point instead of being so broad that they could as easily be used to prove the opposite.
For example, what you've provided here is much more in support of your argument than "lots of people think $FOO".
Being a "person of conscience" only means he was doing what he thought was right. Doesn't have anything to do with legal behavior. Many violent people are "people of conscience".
If you don't want people to legislate morality, then don't be surprised when there is no morality in your legislation.