I am coming late to this conversation, but I wanted to point out a flaw in Jana’s thinking. She said that a few guns wouldn’t prevent her from being gang-raped.

This is likely untrue. Even if the gang were highly motivated enough to attack a woman armed with a fully automatic weapon, they would have to kill or disable her before they got into raping range. Unless their fetishes extend from tasteless and violent into truly strange, the rape would generally be prevented by such an occurrence, unwanted though it might be.

A thinking gang would be aware of this and move on.

The one who believes in “turn the other cheek”, forgiveness, or has no desire to seek restitution can always refuse to take back the bike (thereby relinquishing it to a state of nature or granting it to the perpetrator) or refuse to take the money for it. But the criminal must be sought out unless there are explicit instructions not to do so.

Even after forgiveness, I might mark the forgiven criminals down for recording purposes. Perhaps there was an episode of extortion involved here that changes the nature of the so-called “forgiveness”. That might itself involve some potential for privacy invasion and blackmail, but I’m sure there might be a way to balance out that possibility with contra-incentives.

What I would ordinarily want to see is that victims have delegated (exclusively or not) their rights to self-defense, retaliation and the collection of recompense to third-party agents who are well skilled in handling such matters. By contracting with a DRO, though, one does not forfeit one’s rights to pursue those ends oneself, but rather acts merely to enlist the help of (more numerous, better-armed, better-equipped) specialists.

But here, the rights of the delegors (the dead virgins) have been extinguished, and as Black Bloke points out, in this hypothetical there is no doubt whatsoever as to the nature of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator. The question to ask, for me, is, “what sanction should attach to anyone who kills Green?” I would not want to live in a society where the answer to that question was anything other than “none at all”.

Green is a monster. We have words for people who take personal and social risk to eliminate monsters from our midst. We call them heroes.

Please smack me down if I’m attributing thoughts to you improperly, but part of what you seem to be referring to is the idea that justice ought to be applied “objectively”, that is, by disinterested third parties who have no personal connection to the victims or the accused. Am right in thinking that you hold that belief?

@Anarcho-mercantilist: As Black Bloke mentions, from Marta’s hypothetical we can assume that if evidence were assembled, Green would undeniably be found guilty. As we’re already dealing with a rather extreme boundary case here, we needn’t confound it unnecessarily by adding even more unlikely hypotheticals to the mix. Additionally, at least in my view, deterrence isn’t really at issue in the case of Green the Impaler. I simply want that guy dead, as does Black Block, and no doubt as do many of the decedents’ relatives and acquaintances.

I think you have made an intellectual error. If Green has a twin brother that looks just like him, you will probably murder the wrong person. Nevertheless, at that far of a distance, you would probably mistake Green’s face with another person. Furthermore, you have no proof that Green did not merely have sex but actually raped someone without her consent.

I think you’ve misread the clarity of the example given. The crime isn’t a case of perhaps or perhaps not someone raped someone else. Quote: “his hobby is impaling virgins from the neighborhood on long pointed poles, which he displays along the borderline of his property.” From the example we already have confirmation of murder, and perhaps kidnapping.

The short-order solutions I propose (i.e. “…go in and take him out, or just snipe him…”) are respectively close-range confrontation, and if that isn’t likely (think about the environment) then a long-range confrontation comes into play. Whoever shows their face prior to attempting, or while completing one of the example’s impalings is getting cut down.

I think you have made an intellectual error. If Green has a twin brother that looks just like him, you will probably murder the wrong person. Nevertheless, at that far of a distance, you would probably mistake Green’s face with another person. Furthermore, you have no proof that Green did not merely have sex but actually raped someone without her consent.

“the DRO will have the right to enter your property and somehow make you pay the damages? (after due trial) because just canceling it might not be severe enough (in some cases – like a self-sustaining property) to deter the criminal from further crime. i want gore!!!”

You have a lot of options to deter behavior rather than retributive corporal punishment. Green may feel masochistic and thus enjoy corporal punishment. Green may also ingest pain-blocking medication with would numb the pain from the corporal punishment inflicted on him. Boycotts, fines, social ostracism, peer pressure, and even his personal guilt may deter his behavior. Not all types of punishment work the same with everyone. Different people react differently to social ostracism, punishment, empathy, and guilt. For example, social ostracism may more effectively deter the behavior of some rather than punishment, and vice versa.

Most of us refrain from committing crimes because we feel empathy for others.

DROs would come to reflect a libertarian societal preference for proportional restitution, which means that one must use the most appropriate means for dealing with various threats. For example: You don’t shoot children for walking on your lawn. You can tell them to leave or later physically escort them away from your property, but one can see where the line of excess is.

Using excessive force is grounds for your own prosecution, and you can’t hide behind property rights as an excuse for doing evil.