Perhaps a good first step would be to have a discussion "For the purposes of armchair moralizing", not about the law as it is written, but how it should be.

Why? To discuss the law 'as it should be' invites nothing but a cacophony of opinion. On what basis could such a conversation proceed?

If I were uncharitable, I would suggest that such a discussion would serve only one function: that is , to create a distraction from the law 'as is'.

I'd prefer to assume your intent is to understand or construct a notion of morality. In that spirit, I offer the following question:

What is just?