# Hypothetical Island



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

This is a bit of a thought experiment, so bear with me.

You are marooned on an island, with a couple of dozen or so people, some you know, some you don't.  There is no hope of rescue, so you set about the task of building a life on this island.

You set up an informal government, with a voting body, and you assign jobs necessary for the survival, safety and comfort of the group.

Within a few days of arriving, however, two men find a third man having raped and killed one of the women, near camp.  After a struggle, the two men subdue the man, but too late to save the woman.

The man is brought before the group.  The evidence is overwhelming that he is guilty, and he does nothing to deny this fact.  Moreover, he demands that he be freed, as the group has no authority over him.  He even threatens that if he is not freed, he will kill anyone that attempts to keep him.  

It is clear that he is determined to do as he will, and he has already killed one person.

A trial is convened, and he is determined to be guilty.  The decision now rest in the hands of the group what is to be done with this individual.  Your decision weighs heavily, as you have taken on an informal leadership role in the group.  

What is your suggestion for how to deal with this situation?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 30, 2006)

Kill him


----------



## Cujo (Jan 30, 2006)

If there is no way to ensure the safety of the rest of the people, then he must be executed. The saftey of the remaining group outweighs his basic right to live.

Pax
Cujo


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

So we have two votes for death.  Any other opinions?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 30, 2006)

what type of death?
hanging
drowning
burning
exsanguination......


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> what type of death?
> hanging
> drowning
> burning
> exsanguination......


 It's your island, you tell me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 30, 2006)

Depending on the resources of the island, I would exile the man on the pain of death.  He would be given one to two days to build a raft and leave the island.  After the alotted time is up, he would be driven into the sea regardless of the state of his raft.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Depending on the resources of the island, I would exile the man on the pain of death.  He would be given one to two days to build a raft and leave the island.  After the alotted time is up, he would be driven into the sea regardless of the state of his raft.



A guy like that is not going anywhere voluntarily. Your only options are to build him a cage and then be stuck taking care of him, or kill him. You certainly don't let him run free while you try to figure out why he did what he did......


Interesting question, Sarge.....I think I know where you're going with this.


----------



## ginshun (Jan 30, 2006)

eye for an eye.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 30, 2006)

The man has chosen his own system of government, which is: Whosoever can impose his or her will on others may rightfully do so. Hence, by either the non-violent members' self-chosen government system or by his own logic, he can be executed.

If it were feasible to "jail" him until proper authorities could take custody of him following a hoped-for rescue, or if the group was small enough that his labor (or other special skill) was needed, then captivity would probably be the wisest choice. (If rescued, how would the legal system view the group's having enacted such a punishment? Does it fall under the same necessity defense as "the custom of the sea" does?) Otherwise--and especially if the group is large enough that one reasons there must be another 'bad egg' out there--making an example of someone may, unfortunately, be the best decision. I would be reluctant to order an execution (or lead the discussion toward that conclusion), but it's easy to imagine jail not being feasible and banishment being either infeasible or ineffective (i.e., he might return and wreak further havoc). In fact, banishment is really too soft a punishment for murder, unless the situation is such that banishment would lead to near-certain death. In such a case, and with an eye out to further possible infractions by others, the "everyone can be a good bad example" logic is hard to resist.

So, my vote would be captivity if feasible or necessitated, and death otherwise. I might have some sympathy for the fact that panic, despair, or the like may have led someone to commit a crime he would have been less likely to commit in society, but what other rational choice is there? (If it was clear that he was not despondent but rather that he was glad for an opportunity to live outside society's laws and be able to act out on this impulse, I'd have rather less sympathy for him. Then, execution is obvious.) So, a death as quick and painless as possible may be the best option.

To reject the group's ability to form a society and laws seems irrational. What did the settlers in the Americas do, after all?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 30, 2006)

i dont know if i would make it so quick and painless.
i might make him suffer a bit.........like binding him to a tree, and then seeing how he goes.......animals, or dehydration.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 30, 2006)

Has SgtMac been banned?


----------



## modarnis (Jan 30, 2006)

Difficult scenario.  Not enough resources to jail him.  He likely won't get pushed off on a raft without a major fight (where someone could likely get hurt or killed)  Seems like in this very small society, killing him is the only reasonable option


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 30, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Has SgtMac been banned?


No.  Please direct any further questions to a SuperMod or Admin Staff by PM.  Thank you.


----------



## Sam (Jan 30, 2006)

if you cage him some how it would then be the group's responsibility to care for him. Assuming they are on an island with nothing to begin with, resources will be hard to come by.

He already killed someone himself.

Execute him, hang him.


----------



## KenpoTess (Jan 30, 2006)

Bind him.. and Bury him up to his head in the sand... leave a bit of food and water within reach... and go about your business..


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2006)

Well, as my island would be an "Armed Society" ... the chances of him pulling that off without being killed in the process are slim, and Im sure knowing that his intended Victim was armed and ready would theoretically make him think twice about doing it anyhow.  And if he DID do it, and then tried again, what are the chances he would survive a second attempt?

Things like that have a way of working themselves out if the "people" don't interfere...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 30, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Difficult scenario. Not enough resources to jail him. He likely won't get pushed off on a raft without a major fight (where someone could likely get hurt or killed) Seems like in this very small society, killing him is the only reasonable option


 
It is possible that if one attempts an execution that he would fight back and he could hurt or kill some of his executioners.  If he won't build a raft or he won't swim away, the assumption can be made that he is attempting to reenter the island.  I would then order my people to drown him...and he could escape by swimming away or he would die.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 30, 2006)

If possible you should exile him, depending on the conditions of the island.  You would have to know that he could not return to hurt more people.  Like maybe you could build a raft and take him to the neighboring island across a channel of shark infested waters and then you could be sure he would not return.  Assuming there was a nearby isalnd and you could build a raft and that there were lots of sharks in between haha but its hypothetical and so those are the conditions I choose for my answer 

Short of something like that, it might be feasible to keep him down in a big hole and throw food and water down there everyday. That's pretty low-maintenance.

Failing that too, for whatever reason, as a last resort, make a rope out of vines and string him up.  It's a time honored method and nobody has to get their hands too dirty with killing him.  When rescued, "oh he died in the crash"


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is possible that if one attempts an execution that he would fight back and he could hurt or kill some of his executioners.  If he won't build a raft or he won't swim away, the assumption can be made that he is attempting to reenter the island.  I would then order my people to drown him...and he could escape by swimming away or he would die.



Since the hypothetical situation here states that he has been captured and brought before justice Im assuming that hes been bound/or brought under control. How is forcing the guy into exile any mor "safe" than execution?


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 30, 2006)

Well as the unofficial leader I'd recommend death.  We're talking Rape and murder here.  He is a signifigant threat to the life of everyone else on the island.  The area is too small for lifelong exile - remember, you'll have to forage extensively to procure enough food to live by, and jailing is a luxury we can't afford - nor does this murderer deserve it.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 30, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> The area is too small for lifelong exile - remember, you'll have to forage extensively to procure enough food to live by



Yes, and being in exile, he will now be a competitor for whatever limited resources are available. Very likely, a violent competitor.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 31, 2006)

My initial thought would be turn him into fishing bait.  That way even in death he can be useful! 

Seriously though, he did murder so he should be put to death because any sort of exile will threaten everyone. 

However, the big issue is who is going to carry out the punishment and HOW?


----------



## jdinca (Jan 31, 2006)

He forfeited his right to live. Since he's already bound, take a sharp spear and shove up under his jaw into his brainstem. Finish it quick and move on.


----------



## deadhand31 (Jan 31, 2006)

Well, let's look at this.....

He's presented himself as a danger, and stated he will continue to be a danger. To keep him on the island will be putting others in harm's way. To have him continue living will use up what little resources exist, and continue to put others at risk if he escapes. 

The answer would be to put him to death. To prevent from being a cold-blooded murderer like him, it would need to be carried out in the most humane manner possible. I would say hanging, but only if he can be dropped with enough force to snap the neck. Otherwise, I would say break his neck, ensuring an instant, painless death.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm not as nice as you guys.  I believe in deterence as well as punishment.  I'd castrate the prick myself (pun intended) and then put him down in whatever way was handy.  Big stick maybe?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 2, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The man has chosen his own system of government, which is: Whosoever can impose his or her will on others may rightfully do so. Hence, by either the non-violent members' self-chosen government system or by his own logic, he can be executed.



The above is a damn good summation of the principles involved.

This guy wants to live in a system where whoever has the most power can do what they want. Hence, _by his own moral standards_ the group- being the more powerful, can do whatever they want with him.

So the group has to worry about him being a threat to them. He has killed once to satisfy his desires, it is a very real probability he would do it again. Consideration for his rights or well- being are irrelevent since he does not hold those of others with any respect.

Death would be the safest method of dealing with a potential threat like this. Other options are possible if they benifit the group and do not pose a danger. _Anything_ they want to do to this guy is moral by the standards he holds.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 2, 2006)

I started this post, and then went on a short sabbatical (my fault), and so I wasn't able to contribute anything else for the last couple days.  It's nice to see some good responses.

Apparently the responses fall in to two categories....Death and Banishment.  What's more, those who suggested banishment, acknowledged that it might not be workable.  

If we pick the death penalty, however, are we morally justified in picking that punishment?  Do we have some views that this would be immoral and unjustified, even under these circumstances?


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 2, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If we pick the death penalty, however, are we morally justified in picking that punishment?  Do we have some views that this would be immoral and unjustified, even under these circumstances?



My view is, the death penalty is even more justifed in this situation than in
an actual civilized "society" with established laws and courts. In that situation, you could at least claim that there are LEO's to protect law abiding citizens from dangerous individuals. On the island, there is no one to protect the law abiding group from the dangerous/threatening individual. 

If I am walking down the street and a stranger approaches me and says, in a menacing manner (with witnesses) "I am going to kill you", I believe I am justified in using lethal force, assuming I have no means of escape. The people on the island have no means of escape, the offender has shown intent by killing already and has threatened to kill again. There are no laws or LEO's available for citizen defense. In my mind, this is a "self-defense situation", and immediate execution is justifed.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 2, 2006)

First how do we know it is an island, have w xplored all of it?
If yes and it is so small that it is not possible to excile him to a differnt part of the island (don't think it would work anyway) then as othes have said death would seem the locical answer.  If you only remove his hand(s) he then becomes a burden of the community, if you do nothing he is a threat to all.
Now as to what type of death I would prefer a quick one but I see nowhee that we have the means (knives, guns, rope, etc) there for it might take some thinking to create a means other than stoning


----------



## Kacey (Feb 2, 2006)

I would have to agree with those who said exile if possible and execution if not.  In the scenario you have set up, it does not sound like the remaining members of the society have the wherewithal (time, resources, etc.) to keep this person penned up except possibly through the use of a pit - and who, in that situation, would want to dig such a pit when the time could more profitably be put to finding food or shelter?  And then feed him?

As far as the means of execution, plenty have been suggested.  Rope, if not currently available, can be made out of many types of vegetation... athough in the circumstances given, I'm not sure I'd worry about breaking his neck quickly for his sake (although I might for the sake of the observers).  A large rock thrown from a height onto his head is a little iffy, but if someone has the expertise and willingness to break his neck, that's another possibility.  But given the total lack of remorse and intent to repeat the crime, I see no reason for a society with these limitations on its resources to spend those resources on a criminal of this type.

The next question, of course, would be what to do with someone who was less violent, more remorseful, committed a lesser crime, or committed the given crime under duress (or at least claimed to be under duress) or the influence of mind-altering substance (you never know with mushrooms, for example).


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 2, 2006)

I think that question came into many of our minds and may well be discussed within this thread


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 2, 2006)

Just remember nothing that happens with a small group of people equate to the morrays and functionings of an actual society.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 3, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Just remember nothing that happens with a small group of people equate to the morrays and functionings of an actual society.
> Sean


 A small groups IS an actual society.  The only difference between a small group and a large is the number of people, and the real change that makes is it allows anonymity.  Beyond that, however, a small society is just a mirror of a larger society, with less anonymity.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 3, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> I would have to agree with those who said exile if possible and execution if not. In the scenario you have set up, it does not sound like the remaining members of the society have the wherewithal (time, resources, etc.) to keep this person penned up except possibly through the use of a pit - and who, in that situation, would want to dig such a pit when the time could more profitably be put to finding food or shelter? And then feed him?
> 
> As far as the means of execution, plenty have been suggested. Rope, if not currently available, can be made out of many types of vegetation... athough in the circumstances given, I'm not sure I'd worry about breaking his neck quickly for his sake (although I might for the sake of the observers). A large rock thrown from a height onto his head is a little iffy, but if someone has the expertise and willingness to break his neck, that's another possibility. But given the total lack of remorse and intent to repeat the crime, I see no reason for a society with these limitations on its resources to spend those resources on a criminal of this type.
> 
> The next question, of course, would be what to do with someone who was less violent, more remorseful, committed a lesser crime, or committed the given crime under duress (or at least claimed to be under duress) or the influence of mind-altering substance (you never know with mushrooms, for example).


  Another good set of questions.  How does a society like this develop a system of laws, and what becomes just punishment for violating those laws.  Incarceration merely punishes the group, and allows the individual to simply fed off the labor of the group, without having to contribute themselves. 

In a small group, forced labor requires someone to enforce it, and there has to be a motivation if someone simply decides they don't want to work.

There again, what happens when someone decides they don't want to work, and they simply want everyone else to carry their load?


----------



## Kacey (Feb 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There again, what happens when someone decides they don't want to work, and they simply want everyone else to carry their load?



Ultimately?  There would have to come a point where the society decides to carry the person (for whatever reason) or cuts the person off from the benefits of society - by shunning or some similar mechanism.  Shunning works quite well in a small, self-contained society - it was certainly effective in religious societies, as that's what excommunication amounts to - but would not be effective in a larger society.  At that point, society withdraws itself from the person by placing the person in jail rather than by ignoring the person.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If we pick the death penalty, however, are we morally justified in picking that punishment?



Who is to say that we _are not_ justified? By what standards? I can understand people pointing to their religious principles and standing on them without question. For the rest of us, who is to say that this guy's philosophy of doing whatever you want and killing if you desire is not a moral method? And if so, then we can kill as we please. If we say it is wrong to kill others for personal desires, then he must face the ultimate punishment for his actions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Who is to say that we _are not_ justified?


 Certainly not me.  This is a moral ethical exercise, and i'm merely asking the questions.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> who is to say that this guy's philosophy of doing whatever you want and killing if you desire is not a moral method?


 Good question.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And if so, then we can kill as we please. If we say it is wrong to kill others for personal desires, then he must face the ultimate punishment for his actions.


 True.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 3, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Ultimately? There would have to come a point where the society decides to carry the person (for whatever reason) or cuts the person off from the benefits of society - by shunning or some similar mechanism. Shunning works quite well in a small, self-contained society - it was certainly effective in religious societies, as that's what excommunication amounts to - but would not be effective in a larger society. At that point, society withdraws itself from the person by placing the person in jail rather than by ignoring the person.


 So what we're really saying is this....the point at which society begins to carry the individual, is the point at which society becomes large enough it doesn't know that individual, and can't see why it is they are being asked to carry that individual.  

In other words, we are less likely to carry an individual, when we can see that they are creating the situation themselves, that necessitates our carrying them.  A person who is simply lazy, for example, cannot hide that fact from a small society that knows them.  In a large society, however, they can simply keep their head down and ride on societies back.  Would that be a fair statement?


----------



## stone_dragone (Feb 3, 2006)

Given that the individual shows no repentance for either act (rape OR murder) and the society as a whole will possibly suffer, since he has already reduced the productivity of the society, and therefore the liklihood of survival for all, by two whole people (the victim and himself), then removal from the society is the best option.  My recomendation would be to bind him, hand and foot, and place him on a makeshift raft (after knocking him unconscious with a rock or something) and put him out to sea as the tide goes out.  Minimal work for the society, he is gone, and in the highly unlikely event of his return alive, he will have, quite probably, had the time to reflect on his crimes and therefore, a greater providence has deemed that his life is worth salvaging.  My two bits.


----------



## Dan G (Feb 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A small groups IS an actual society. The only difference between a small group and a large is the number of people, and the real change that makes is it allows anonymity. Beyond that, however, a small society is just a mirror of a larger society, with less anonymity.


 
I agree anonimity is the real difference. In a small group the decision is a personal one, in a large group the "unpleasant" decisions are made distant and sanitised. Interesting that the general consensus seems to be for a harsher punishment when the hypothetical example involves a small group.

Having said all that, if resources are short I suggest eating him. Beach BBQ would cheer everyone up!:barf:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I agree anonimity is the real difference. In a small group the decision is a personal one, in a large group the "unpleasant" decisions are made distant and sanitised. Interesting that the general consensus seems to be for a harsher punishment when the hypothetical example involves a small group.


 Yes, that's very interesting isn't it?  And much as I suspected it would be.  Apparently, familiarity breeds contempt when it comes to heinous crimes.



			
				Dan G said:
			
		

> Having said all that, if resources are short I suggest eating him. Beach BBQ would cheer everyone up!:barf:


 No man is so bad that he can't be used.....as a tasty meal!


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 4, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> Having said all that, if resources are short I suggest eating him. Beach BBQ would cheer everyone up!:barf:



Oh no! Meatloaf _again?_


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Oh no! Meatloaf _again?_


 Long pork....the OTHER other white meat. :barf:


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 4, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I agree anonimity is the real difference. In a small group the decision is a personal one, in a large group the "unpleasant" decisions are made distant and sanitised. Interesting that the general consensus seems to be for a harsher punishment when the hypothetical example involves a small group.



Or, could another factor be that in a small group, say 6-8 people in our "case study", each individual feels more directly threatened by the presence of a single rapist/murderer, especially since that murderer knows each of them personally. If he decides to kill again, each of them has a 15-20% chance of being the next victim.

Contrast this to a large conventional society where the ratio of murderous individuals vs. law-abiding citizens is much lower, making the average person feel far less likely to be a victim. A large society also has LEO's to at least attempt to protect the citizens.   The attitude is often seen that violent crime is "something that happens to other people".  

The sense of urgency to punish goes down quickly when you don't feel as vulnerable personally. As for me, I would favor execution of a rapist/murderer in either a small, closed group, or in a large conventional society. But I do wonder how individuals that are against capital punishment would feel about it if they were one of the surviving group on the island


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No man is so bad that he can't be used.....as a tasty meal!


 
Actually, in the situation you described, on an island where food resources are most likely limited, eating both the perpetrator and the victim makes a lot of sense.  If the ultimate goal is survival, then one must do what they must.  It is also helpful to remember that on many south pacific islands, cannibalism was widely practiced.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, in the situation you described, on an island where food resources are most likely limited, eating both the perpetrator and the victim makes a lot of sense.  If the ultimate goal is survival, then one must do what they must.  It is also helpful to remember that on many south pacific islands, cannibalism was widely practiced.




So, sitting around waiting for Mary Ann to whip up a coconut cream pie is out of the question?


----------



## Dan G (Feb 4, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Or, could another factor be that in a small group, say 6-8 people in our "case study", each individual feels more directly threatened by the presence of a single rapist/murderer, especially since that murderer knows each of them personally. If he decides to kill again, each of them has a 15-20% chance of being the next victim.
> 
> Contrast this to a large conventional society where the ratio of murderous individuals vs. law-abiding citizens is much lower, making the average person feel far less likely to be a victim. A large society also has LEO's to at least attempt to protect the citizens. The attitude is often seen that violent crime is "something that happens to other people".
> 
> The sense of urgency to punish goes down quickly when you don't feel as vulnerable personally. As for me, I would favor execution of a rapist/murderer in either a small, closed group, or in a large conventional society. But I do wonder how individuals that are against capital punishment would feel about it if they were one of the surviving group on the island


 
I think you've hit on the stronger factor. In a small group the threat is more personal, and self/group protection rather than punishment becomes the main consideration.

It would be interesting to see how the responses would change if the hypothetical scenario made clear that there was no chance the perpetrator would reoffend, and there was no threat to the others on the island, and no need for a deterrent precedent. The question then becomes purely one of punishment and personal v state administered responsibility for enforcement of the punishment. 

It is interesting that legal systems that arise out of small societies either have no death penalty for tribe members (e.g Masaii tribal custom), a custom of blood feud/vendetta, or largely tend towards a victim centered approach where even if there is a neutral court to intercede the victim or family members can choose either blood money or the death penalty. (e.g. Viking and Saxon law, Islamic law in some states).

My view on the death penalty changes depending on the size of the society, in a small society where the response is personal and conducted by those immediately affected I can accept it despite the obvious scope for witch-hunts, or generation long blood feuds(e.g. parts of Albania) as it is essentially a human response although often foolish or unjust and frequently very very destructive. However, as soon as a society reaches a size where the individual delegates enforcement and justice to the State I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty being imposed by the State. 

If I give up the right to seek redress from another, including their death, I do it because creating a justice system makes the society I life in safer overall. I am prepared to give up the right to seek personal redress, but I refuse to delegate to the extent that I give the right to punish another with death, in my name, to the State. It is not a decision I would lightly entrust to another, least of all a politician or a lawyer, the more so because in delegating that right I am giving them the power of life and death over me as well. I wouldn't get my car fixed by a mechanic that was known to be occasionally dishonest or incompetent, I certainly would never see a doctor if I had similar doubts. Similarly I am extremely nervous about extending the power that the State has over me.

As a martial artist I am partly motivated by the desire to take some measure of control over my own safety and livelihood, so it makes sense to me to minimise the number of people who have the power of life or death over me, and the people I care about. If the price that is paid for overall safety is to lose the right to take the full redress that I might want I think that on balance I still come off better. 

Having said that my view is based on respect for personal decision making, so on this issue I respect the view of others even if I don't agree with it.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 4, 2006)

so they castrate him ?

good point on asking  how someone opposed to capital punishment would deal with thi situation


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Or, could another factor be that in a small group, say 6-8 people in our "case study", each individual feels more directly threatened by the presence of a single rapist/murderer, especially since that murderer knows each of them personally. If he decides to kill again, each of them has a 15-20% chance of being the next victim.
> 
> Contrast this to a large conventional society where the ratio of murderous individuals vs. law-abiding citizens is much lower, making the average person feel far less likely to be a victim. A large society also has LEO's to at least attempt to protect the citizens. The attitude is often seen that violent crime is "something that happens to other people".
> 
> The sense of urgency to punish goes down quickly when you don't feel as vulnerable personally. As for me, I would favor execution of a rapist/murderer in either a small, closed group, or in a large conventional society. But I do wonder how individuals that are against capital punishment would feel about it if they were one of the surviving group on the island


 Of course consider the reason why the ratio is lower in a large society such as ours.  It's basically because we began culling criminals out from smaller societies.  Consider early American societies, which were smaller and more isolated.  Consider how they dealt with serious criminal behavior.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I think you've hit on the stronger factor. In a small group the threat is more personal, and self/group protection rather than punishment becomes the main consideration.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how the responses would change if the hypothetical scenario made clear that there was no chance the perpetrator would reoffend, and there was no threat to the others on the island, and no need for a deterrent precedent. The question then becomes purely one of punishment and personal v state administered responsibility for enforcement of the punishment.
> 
> ...


 Therein lies a minor fallaciousness in the argument.  There is no way to ensure that the perpetrator will not reoffend.  In fact, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.  

Moreover, allowing the crime to go unchecked, will almost ensure a similar response in the future, especially if the group seems cowed by the violence of this individual who has already shown his willingness and desire to engage in violence against other members of the group.  Given that, the offender seems almost certain to reoffend, especially if he is not only NOT punished, but rewarded (in the sense that the group fears his behavior, and submits because of fear).  

Imagine if this offender gains the sympathy of a very minor, but violent faction of the group.  They can gain control of the group through threat of violence.

I think the idea of 'punishment' is not really the point.  Does he deserve punishment?  Arguably, but again, that's not the point.  I feel he should 'hang' because the group is not safe with him around.  Banishment may work, or it may simply leave a violent and belligerant nemesis for the future.  

Any other response will merely create useless baggage for the already taxed resources of the group.  Death is the only reasonable answer.  Moreover, it sends a clear message about the will of the group to maintain order to anyone else who might contemplate a similar action.  

Though there is a 'truism' that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a hard case to make that you will watch a man suffer a fate for an action, and be anything but LESS likely to commit that action yourself in the future.  

That's my opinion, and mine only.  I do have a question along those lines, however.  If death is determined to be the appropriate response, who decides?  Is it a group vote?  Unanimous or majority?  And who carries it our?


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 4, 2006)

[sgtmac_46/quote]

I think the idea of 'punishment' is not really the point.  Does he deserve punishment?  Arguably, but again, that's not the point.  I feel he should 'hang' because the group is not safe with him around.  [/quote]

Agreed.....I used the term "punishment" in an earlier post when my intent was to describe an action that would protect the survivors from future attacks, rather than a focus of making consequences unpleasant for the offender. The safety of the survivors is paramount. In this situation, IMO, execution of the offender is the only reasonable alternative, and it really has nothing to do with the generally accepted concept of "punishment".

                         [sgtmac_46/quote]
That's my opinion, and mine only.  I do have a question along those lines, however.  If death is determined to be the appropriate response, who decides?  Is it a group vote?  Unanimous or majority?  And who carries it our?[/quote] 

I think it must be a group vote. Unanimous...no. Majority....yes. 
If it is not a decision endorsed by a majority of the survivors, then it regresses back to a different version of someone dictating the rules of engagement on the majority, even if, in this case, the cause is more noble.
Frankly, if the majority chooses to not execute the offender, then they deserve whatever happens to them next. The bigger question is, if the majority votes to let the offender live, what are the implications of conduct and engagement for the minority who wanted the offender executed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Frankly, if the majority chooses to not execute the offender, then they deserve whatever happens to them next. The bigger question is, if the majority votes to let the offender live, what are the implications of conduct and engagement for the minority who wanted the offender executed.


 Agreed.  It is the majority decision of the social group, and should rest with them.  

As for the implications of conduct and engagement, it is clear that majority have no interest in actually governing.  At that point, possibly, a minority may decide that it is up to them to ensure the safety of the group.  In that event, the consequences may be dire for the group as a whole.


----------



## Dan G (Feb 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If death is determined to be the appropriate response, who decides? Is it a group vote? Unanimous or majority? And who carries it our?


 
It is a defining moment - there are quite a few permutations, but whichever is chosen defines the society. 

the 4 issues that seem most relevant to me are:

*1) Is the offender perceived to be "in group", "out group" or "other group"?*
The first defines him as a criminal, in group but in violation of custom (law).
The second defines him as a threat to all, with no protection of custom (law), and an enemy to all mankind as were medieval outlaws, and pirates until recently. The third creates the concept of an external group and introduces the concept of war.

*2) Why is the decision to kill him made?*
If it is for his actions whilst as a group member then it creates a crime, and depending on how the decision is taken, possibly a precedent rule that the society members must avoid breaking.
If it is for the threat he poses then it creates a security policy.
If it is for no longer being part of the group through breach of custom then it sets a positive set of social obligations to be obeyed.
If it for being part of a hostile external group then it creates a foreign policy.

*3) Who makes the decision and how is the decision made? *
This determines the political system that the society adopts, despotic, democratic, collective anarchic etc

*4) Who enforces the decision?*
This defines the duties and powers of the society member, and depending on the previous variables there are many permutations. Including a group militia, a right to defend given to all group members, a security role for part of the group, a special permission to serve in that role, an obligation to serve in that role, a system which punishes a failure to enforce, or a system that creates a reward for those that enforce...

Given that the society is small and newly formed I would expect the most likely response to be that each member of the group feels threatened and treats the man as an outlaw, to be killed when opportunity arises. It is the decision that creates the least social complexity and is therefore the one most likely to be arrived at in a hurry.

What happens to the body of the victim, and the body of the man once he is killed is the next decision that the society faces, the choice made and the reasons for it also fundamentally define the society. 
Again the range of possibilities is large. If the bodies are treated in a similar manner then it may indicate a recognition of humanity over and above group membership - and the society may ultimately have a prediposition towards a spiritual belief that recognise a concept of humanity regardless of actions, and possibly also a potential to create a concept of general human rights extending beyond group membership. If they decide resources are short and put them both on the BBQ then perhaps, but not neccessarily, they have a predisposition towards utilitarian thought and maybe a contempt for the individual, or perhaps a lack of spiritual belief system. Alternatively a practice of eating the dead may arise and become a spiritual custom, or perhaps a national dish...opcorn: 

Endless possibilities... I like the hypothetical question, it leads to much more than I initially thought at first glance...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

What happens if he is sentenced to death, and he manages to escape before the sentence is carried out?


----------



## Dan G (Feb 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What happens if he is sentenced to death, and he manages to escape before the sentence is carried out?


 
BBQ is postponed...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> BBQ is postponed...


 Hehe 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  It's on the hoof.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 5, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> BBQ is postponed...



A little exercise helps whet the appetite. :EG:


----------



## Dan G (Feb 5, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> A little exercise helps whet the appetite. :EG:


 
...and recreational sports are invented on the island... :idea:


----------



## Satt (Feb 6, 2006)

It sounds to me like either you've been watching "Lost" or you are making some sort of analogy. Maybe Terrorism, crime rates, etc...


----------



## arnisador (Feb 6, 2006)

A bare majority would signal a need for more discussion, I think. Unanimity is too much to hope for, but a vote of 11-10 in favor of death sows the seeds for future dissension in the group.

Is there a precedent? I really wonder what would happen if the day after the execution there cam an unexpected rescue. Might they be prosecuted? This would have to occur on an island owned by _some _nation, after all...what does the Kiribati govt. think of a group taking such matters into its own hands in their jurisdiction? I still think the group must do what must be done ("necessity defense"), but I do wonder what the criminal and civil outcomes would be.

I am indifferent about applying "the custom of the sea" in this regard...it has an obvious utility argument, but personally, I might order the fish instead.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 7, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is there a precedent? I really wonder what would happen if the day after the execution there cam an unexpected rescue. Might they be prosecuted? This would have to occur on an island owned by _some _nation, after all...what does the Kiribati govt. think of a group taking such matters into its own hands in their jurisdiction?



I think this scenario has been set up so as to make us think and debate rather than be able to fall back behind the sheild of following the law. If there is no goverment and no rules that we will be held to, what would we do in this situation and how would we justify it.

Hence my tossing out that comment earlier about how we should not assume we have to justify killing him.  I kind of want to get to the bare bones of the matter. If killing him is not justified, I want to the reasons laid out and shown. The same goes for thinking killing is justified. No hiding behind the law or anything else!!!! Let the debate go on!:boxing:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I think this scenario has been set up so as to make us think and debate rather than be able to fall back behind the sheild of following the law. If there is no goverment and no rules that we will be held to, what would we do in this situation and how would we justify it.
> 
> Hence my tossing out that comment earlier about how we should not assume we have to justify killing him. I kind of want to get to the bare bones of the matter. If killing him is not justified, I want to the reasons laid out and shown. The same goes for thinking killing is justified. No hiding behind the law or anything else!!!! Let the debate go on!:boxing:


 No, that is correct.  This hypothetical island, being a construct, exists devoid of any outside force beyond the natural.  There is no 'rescuer' or any outside law, other than created on this island.  No one is going to show up one day and judge this society.  This society judges itself.


----------

