“The penalty should fit the crime”, libertarians say. Does this mean that they advocate death penalty for murder?
Some do, some don’t. Those that do I think are ultimately statist. Those that don’t are more consistent. Rather than take a life they would consider a more appropriate punishment to be some kind of bondage until some determined amount of restitution is made. Say the expected earnings of the murderered person as an example. Or perhaps they’d turn a blind eye to a revenge killing. They would also expect society to be able to voluntarily ostracize such people for good. Can’t do that now. For example in my job in HR we can’t legally consider certain crimes when hiring people if they fall outside a given time frame. Which means I basically have to let a guy who murdered his last girl friend or wife work next to and hit on existing female workers in my office if some arbitrary length of time has passed since the crime. I can’t tell anyone of his crime, or warn them to be careful, or I am legally in trouble. Not so in a libertarian society. You can’t own your reputation, so if you do something to tarnish it you can be permanently ostracized and anyone who wants to may disassociate themselves with you. While the punishment may not fall along classic lines, in the end I think it would be more harsh, easier on the victims of the crime, and harder for the criminal to work his way back into society.
Society could ostracize the murderer to a point where he committed suicide. This seems the only way to enforce any kind of death penalty and remain consistent with NAP, however; I don’t think it likely to happen under a libertarian society.
In the case of murder, then the criminal should be forced to work the rest of his life and the proceeds go to the victim’s heirs.
If the criminal can’t perform enough work to pay the cost of his food and shelter and prison, then the death penalty is justified.
The way I see punishment working in a free society amounts to a prison business establishing contracts with either individuals or security companies to take apprehended criminals in. For example, let’s say that a burgler is apprehended on somebody’s private property. The security company hired to protect that property takes him to their own cell temporarily. They have signed a contract with a large prison system, and thus pay the prison system to take the criminal of their hands (the criminal would otherwise cost money to upkeep and the security company may not have the tools to put that criminal to use). This transfer cost would likely be small, as the prison would make the majority of its profits using that criminal as labor. Length of the sentence is likely to be set by the security company. The prisoner is likely to remain “property” of the security company and just handed over to the prison for a certain period of time. The criminal is not likely to work until he or she has replaced the total value of what he or she stole or destroyed. Rather, the criminal is likely to work until fulfilling the years established by a social contract established when the criminal entered somebody else’s property and burglarized it. There is no doubt that there would be a profit made off the burglar.
It’s impossible to make restitution for murder because the victim is no longer around to receive it. The restitution owed to the victim’s heirs and associates is only secondary—a solitary hermit has as much a right not to murdered as someone with a lot of heirs and associates.
What is statist about saying that someone who kills a murderer is not guilty of murder?
Also, I think that a society that uses concerted ostracism as its only penalty for crimes risks blurring the distinction between actual crimes and actions that are merely unpopular.
I do not. In order to carry out this penalty, it makes someone else a killer, regardless of whether or not it is justified. If a killer wants to commit suicide however, by all means he should be able to.
And in order to carry out fines, it makes someone else a thief?
If a person punches someone in the face they give up the right not to be punched in the face. When an individual steals a set amount of money he gives up his right not to be stolen from for that amount. When a person kills another person they give up their right not to be killed. So when one fights back against an aggressor, takes from a thief, or kills a murderer no crime has been committed because the criminal has agreed that these practices are ok.
I did not say it makes them a murderer. I said it makes them a killer. So no, issuing fines does not make one a thief, since it is not the same analogy.
An eye for an eye?
There’s a difference between claiming the amount that has been stolen from you, and killing a murderer. Killing a murderer doesn’t give life back to the victim.
Not true. I hope most libertarians don’t believe in this nonsense.
You hope that libertarians don’t believe in proportional justice? Your hopes are about to become crudely dashed.
Well baring Walter Block’s interest in the ‘death machine’, killing could give the psychological benefit of justice served to the next of kin of the victim. They don’t have to utilize the death penalty, it is after all their choice. Perhaps they would like a lump sum of reparations for damages or maybe a lifetime of such.
No they do not. Libertarians advocate restitution and reparation, not retribution.
No. Since libertarians advocate restitution over retribution, they may support some kind of work camp for criminals where they might earn a small wage or salary and have a part of their earnings go to their victims, or the family and/or friends of their victims in the case of murder.
You think if you hit someone that they automatically get to hit you? Or that if you kill someone, that you get to be killed? Or do you think they deserve just compensation? What if I am 25 and I kill a 90 year old? You think it is fair that I should forfeit the rest of my life? I hope you really do not think this.
Not automatically though if you did punch me in the face and continued to try such then it would be valid to defend myself. The legal system should be used to establish reparations on the matter.
If you take a life, you forfeit your own or at least have the chance to if the court rules against you and decides you are a murder. The family is perfectly just in ending your life if they see it as compensating for the lose of their family member. Or they can make you pay reparations for a period of time. It is up to them.
No you don’t. That is simply a barbaric opinion. One should lose some of his or her freedom, but not his or her life.
The what I call: inquiry into repercussions is a deep topic. This thread was a very enlightening thread on the various perspectives on this topic.
Justice demands reparations of similar value plus that of the amount of distortion the crime that has been committed. Obviously there is no ‘death machine’ which can take the life of the killer away from him/her and put such life back into the victim. Therefore the family of the victim [ or proxy/agent ] must settle for a different option. Namely the ending of the life of the murder or reparations for the murder itself.