Not necessarily.
if i am known to look out for my property, and that of the neighbourhood and my neighbours enjoy the ‘spillover benefit’ of my having so acted, and i have received reciprocal benefits in kind wherever my neighbours have so acted, still liability for the murders of others has not come into it.
You’re missing the point. If instead of punishing a known and convicted murderer almost guaranteed to kill again, you ‘banish’ him from your community and he just proceeds to go to kill the neighbor’s daughter - is the equivalent of tossing an armed grenade over to your neighbors lawn and calling it a case of ‘sh_t happens’.
perhaps you are missing the point that human agents are not mere automata but beings of will.
so i must ask you whether your ‘grenade machine-man’ is really a grenade machine, or a man?
and, perhaps even more to the point, if a grenade is tossed onto your property from the north, why can you not throw it back north?
So under what rights violation do you bring these ‘implicit murderer helpers’ to jail? Failure to prevent murder?
Some sort of negligence.
But I dont believe anyone will take that risk. Capital Punishment (my position) or real, actual life imprisonment (Stranger’s position, though I doubt this) would be the more likely outcome of a murder trial, and perhaps many rape trials as well.
You will have to show in praxeology where the action of others display our preferences or that other people’s actions are actually our own or that we are responsible for the actions of others because I’m skeptical about your argument.
Praxeology, schmaxeology. The inquiry would be whether the cost of just executing the criminal is cheaper than the subsequent harm he inflicts.
Preferences aside, capitalizing this with a reality show would easily make back revenue to make holding Manson captive. Wouldn’t watch the show, but a lot would.
There’s no need to be so outlandish. Prisons as they exist today are a system designed to enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers. A prison designed to protect people on the outside from a group of sociopaths would not need to brutally punish them, it would only need to restrict and monitor their movement. They could be perfectly functional economically within the prison, and earn their own living with which to pay for their imprisonment.
Much better answer. I will go back to stalking RedLetterMedia for now.
This is an attitude borne of the fact that the State socializes the costs of keeping homicidal maniacs protected from their victims’ families via taxation. If death row inmates had to actually solicit sponsors for their security, their meals, and their medical care, then very few such inmates would remain alive.
Depends on how wealthy or how large a family the accused has, as I’m sure you’d agree.
,
What about innovation though? I mean they could take the “demolition man” route and cryogenicly preserve prisoners if that is the customer’s wish or eventually lock them up in giant credit cards a la superman?