Political Theory

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

C.H. Hellstrom — Sun, 10 May 2009 22:20:40 GMT

jdcoffey:
If restitution cannot be made, how is Justice served?

You could always execute the murderer.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

hayekianxyz — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:41:06 GMT

jdcoffey:

GilesStratton:

On the market everything has a price, and whilst some might not find this particularly palatable, that includes life.

The victim did not place his life on the market. In addition, assuming that the wife truly loved her husband, there may be no price in the world she would be willing to accept for the life of her husband. Is it up to an arbitor to decide what the victim was worth? If the murderer cannot pay the restitution, what is to be done with him?

Well, consider this: in a stateless society, the provision of security will be done, mostly, by insurance companies.

So when you buy insurance you're essentially putting a price on your head.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

JCFolsom — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:32:52 GMT

sthomper:
"A murderer's life is forfeit....."

i assume you mean in times of war too.

but this is probobly as good as it can get.

and those lives that kill the falsely accused should also be forfeit.

Indeed, in times of war, too. And you should be absolutely certain that the accused is guilty before you kill them, or harm them in any way. This requires direct witness, really.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

Zavoi — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:17:47 GMT

jdcoffey:
If restitution cannot be made, how is Justice served? Are we to allow the victim's next-of-kin, or whomever was delegated his power-of-attorney, to choose the punishment for the murderer once he is convicted in private court?

Let's assume the most unambiguous case, a first-degree, premeditated murder with the intent to murder where there is no uncertainty about the murderer's guilt. The appropriate punishment is death, because the murderer cannot object to being killed without saying that killing is wrong, thereby contradicting his previously-demonstrated belief that killing is not wrong (the "estoppel" argument).

If the murder is liable to the wife and children, then this liability is of the same sort as would be owed to anybody else to whom the victim was providing an ongoing benefit. For example, if the victim was in the middle of a project with his company, then the murderer would owe restitution to the people at the company, which would be paid out of the murderer's assets to the extent that this is possible.

Remember, however, that these damages are incidental to the main crime of murder. A solitary hermit has as much a right to life as someone with many friends and relatives. If the family and friends of the victim decided to forgive the murderer, this would change nothing because forgiveness is not theirs to give. Anyone who wishes to kill the murderer may do so, and anyone who prevents this is guilty of violating the rights of the person trying to kill the murderer.

JCFolsom:
The aggrieved party has the right to kill them as they like, or auction them off, or use their services in perpetuity.

The "aggrieved party" isn't around anymore to make any of these decisions.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

sthomper — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:13:18 GMT

"A murderer's life is forfeit....."

i assume you mean in times of war too.

but this is probobly as good as it can get.

and those lives that kill the falsely accused should also be forfeit.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

JCFolsom — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:00:28 GMT

I. Ryan:
No. The murderer is still alive; therefore, the murderer has retained his right to life (in that situation). Your argument uses ambiguous language to create an illusionary point.

Pretty much any argument on these topics is going to involve either some ambiguity or oversimplification. After all, it is difficult to define what is moral and ethical when these terms themselves are difficult to define. A murderer's life is forfeit. The aggrieved party may kill him at any time, justifiably, as well as commit any lesser injury along the way. Therefore, he or she may threaten the murderer with such injury if they do not do as they are commanded. This sounds like slavery to me. Or do you think that if one person slays another, their life is not forfeit?

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

JCFolsom — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:56:24 GMT

jdcoffey:
That seems like a legitimate argument. Are you saying, in effect, that the murderer becomes the property of the wife?

Yes.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

I. Ryan — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:44:58 GMT

JCFolsom:

jdcoffey:
How can restitution be made in case of Murder? The victim is dead and cannot be paid. Let's assume that the victim is married and has two young children with his wife. The wife could receive whatever restitution to which the victim would be entitled, but isn't it true that no payment or service can replace the loss of a father/husband?

If restitution cannot be made, how is Justice served? Are we to allow the victim's next-of-kin, or whomever was delegated his power-of-attorney, to choose the punishment for the murderer once he is convicted in private court?

I think perpetual slavery could do the trick. The only fair trade is a life for a life, but since mere killing isn't of much value, what is sacrificed instead is the person's right to life, the person's right to be respected by the NAP, forever, for that is what they took. The criminal loses their status as a human being and becomes property. The aggrieved party has the right to kill them as they like, or auction them off, or use their services in perpetuity.

No. The murderer is still alive; therefore, the murderer has retained his right to life (in that situation). Your argument uses ambiguous language to create an illusionary point.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

jdcoffey — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:39:47 GMT

JCFolsom:

jdcoffey:
How can restitution be made in case of Murder? The victim is dead and cannot be paid. Let's assume that the victim is married and has two young children with his wife. The wife could receive whatever restitution to which the victim would be entitled, but isn't it true that no payment or service can replace the loss of a father/husband?

If restitution cannot be made, how is Justice served? Are we to allow the victim's next-of-kin, or whomever was delegated his power-of-attorney, to choose the punishment for the murderer once he is convicted in private court?

I think perpetual slavery could do the trick. The only fair trade is a life for a life, but since mere killing isn't of much value, what is sacrificed instead is the person's right to life, the person's right to be respected by the NAP, forever, for that is what they took. The criminal loses their status as a human being and becomes property. The aggrieved party has the right to kill them as they like, or auction them off, or use their services in perpetuity.

That seems like a legitimate argument. Are you saying, in effect, that the murderer becomes the property of the wife?

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

jdcoffey — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:37:44 GMT

GilesStratton:

On the market everything has a price, and whilst some might not find this particularly palatable, that includes life.

The victim did not place his life on the market. In addition, assuming that the wife truly loved her husband, there may be no price in the world she would be willing to accept for the life of her husband. Is it up to an arbitor to decide what the victim was worth? If the murderer cannot pay the restitution, what is to be done with him?

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

JCFolsom — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:36:09 GMT

jdcoffey:
How can restitution be made in case of Murder? The victim is dead and cannot be paid. Let's assume that the victim is married and has two young children with his wife. The wife could receive whatever restitution to which the victim would be entitled, but isn't it true that no payment or service can replace the loss of a father/husband?

If restitution cannot be made, how is Justice served? Are we to allow the victim's next-of-kin, or whomever was delegated his power-of-attorney, to choose the punishment for the murderer once he is convicted in private court?

I think perpetual slavery could do the trick. The only fair trade is a life for a life, but since mere killing isn't of much value, what is sacrificed instead is the person's right to life, the person's right to be respected by the NAP, forever, for that is what they took. The criminal loses their status as a human being and becomes property. The aggrieved party has the right to kill them as they like, or auction them off, or use their services in perpetuity.

Re: Restitution and Justice for Murder

hayekianxyz — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:05:24 GMT

On the market everything has a price, and whilst some might not find this particularly palatable, that includes life.

Restitution and Justice for Murder

jdcoffey — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:29:55 GMT

How can restitution be made in case of Murder? The victim is dead and cannot be paid. Let's assume that the victim is married and has two young children with his wife. The wife could receive whatever restitution to which the victim would be entitled, but isn't it true that no payment or service can replace the loss of a father/husband?

If restitution cannot be made, how is Justice served? Are we to allow the victim's next-of-kin, or whomever was delegated his power-of-attorney, to choose the punishment for the murderer once he is convicted in private court?