Hypothetical Island

[tradrockrat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Touch Of Death]

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.