Could the death penalty ever be justified by a libertarian? If it is only justified to use force for self-defense, if a criminal is locked up and incapable of any longer commiting a crime, could it still be justified? What about self-defense against a burglar. Say for instance someone breaks into your house, you come charging at him with a baseball bat and he immediately runs away, off your property. Is it still justified to chase him down the street and attack him, even if he has forfeited his attempt to rob you of your property?
If you argue that a criminal has ‘lost his rights’ if he commits an offence (say for example he steals a chocoloate bar), how long does it take until he gets his right not to be attacked back?
Nobody ever “loses thier rights”. As for the death penalty, it depends on who you ask. Some say it’s never justified, others (Rothbard is one I believe) say that when someone murders someone else, via the principle of proportional restitution, the injuried party (namely the family of the murdered person) gets to decide. That is, they took someone else’s life, therefore they get a life back. They injured party might decide that the death penalty is the best choice, or they may decide to eslave the murder, merely take some form of limited restitution, or even let him go.
I don’t think anyone says that. A person who has committed a tort certainly has to do something to put things right again. I disagree with the Rothbardian view that what has to be done to make things right again can be determined from reason alone. Both reason and experience (outcomes) must inform the process of determining what has to be done to make things right after damage has been done to someone else.
In general, brawling behavior is not amenable to making the argument that you are interested in peaceful settlement of a dispute through the law. If you were running down the street chasing a fleeing attempted burglar with a gun, shooting at him, it would be difficult to make the case that if he just pays XYZ damages and signs a contract that he will never re-offend (on pain of some lawful penalty), that the matter will, in fact, be settled. He is more likely to refuse to participate in legal proceedings at all, making the situation more dangerous for everyone involved.
Of course! All he has to do is live in a place where every other person agrees with the same policy. If a dispute ever arises, the arbitrator in question will think the same way and VOILA! the death penalty is justified.
The same question ca be asked about locking somebody up.
Can locking somebody up ever be justified by a libertarian?
You have no way of knowing the burglar has forfeited anything. He may come back later that day to finish you off and his job.