18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
It's obviously a moot point. No modern state is going to legislate thus. But is it really so obvious that sparing defiant drunkards would have no impact on the well-being of neighboring innocents? Really? If anything, in a world of high-tech weapons and automobiles, the tolerating of defiant drunkards results in an even GREATER risk to innocents than it was in Moses' day.
Greg opposes the legitimacy of deterrence per se. But unless he's right about that, one has to do some objective math to make a case against Moses. Mere pontification is of no avail.