24A039 A Death Penalty in the ZGS? by Jim Davies, 10/8/2024

Several reasons. One is that, as shown in A Pretense of Justice last year, there won't be any penalties at all, in its free-market justice industry. When harm is done, the perp will be ordered to repair it; the principle will be that of restitution, not retribution. Huge difference.

Another reason is a bit more complex. Except for treason (an artificial "crime" merely against government) the death penalty is or may be imposed only for the crime of murder, though in past times it was less limited. The argument is that by deliberately killing B, murderer A has forfeited his own right to life. A nice, tidy example of an eye for an eye.

Once a jury has found A guilty and confirmed that he's to be executed, there is a long string of appeals guaranteed, at the end of which an agent of the State pulls a switch or injects a needle and kills A. The State thereby does what A did. Since it's wrong for A to end someone's life, it's wrong also for the State to do so. Two bad deeds do not produce one good deed; they don't zeroize the sum total of evil, they double it.

A further argument against execution is the obvious one that whereas death is final and irreversible, the jury cannot ever be 100% certain that A is guilty. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that in itself is not unfair; doubts can arise from the defense offered in court, and what's "reasonable" to one juror may be less so for another. Given then that certainty of guilt is impossible, the final certainty of killing the accused is unjust.

Beyond that, the justice industry in the ZGS will not just cause the perp ("A") to restitute to the friends and dependents of his victim as far as is feasible but also, I think, differentiate among types of homicide. Once restitution is made the case will normally be finished; A can get on with his life. But suppose the court finds that A did not just kill B in a one-time fit of temper, but has a psychological bias that causes him to kill repeatedly? - a "Ted Bundy" type, for example? Then, in those very few cases, the court may well order that A be confined - to protect the rest of society.

The confinement would bear little resemblance to today's prisons. It would have the sole purpose of preventing A from killing again - not of denying him any more of the enjoyments of life than what is strictly needed for that purpose. He would not be prevented from earning a living, receiving visitors etc. - indeed he would be encouraged to conduct business, so as to earn enough to make the ordered restitution and to pay for his room & board; for the company confining him will naturally expect to make a profit. If he can save money over those basic requirements, he'll be free to grow as rich as his skills allow.

What, it may be asked, of the killer who will evolve into a serial murderer but who has not done so yet? - and it's a fair question. The answer is that as well as all the above, no law will inhibit the carrying of firearms, and anyone attacked will be free to resist with lethal force. So the more a bad guy menaces people, the more likely he will die before any subsequent case ever comes to court.

It's possible that some serial harm-doers will, after conviction, refuse to work while confined; and of course there must be no compulsion, for that would be enslavement. In that case, the convict will be unable to pay his rent or restaurant tab. He will therefore starve, and die; but that would be by his own hand, not that of the Zero Government Society or its competing courts and judges.

A final possibility: a strong incentive will exist to discover a way to repair the bad wiring in the brains of serial killers like A, so that they cease to be compulsively homicidal and therefore need no such confinement. That may or may not prove feasible, but would be of great benefit if it is; and while its use must remain voluntary on the patient's part, I think that few habitual killers will refuse to take the treatment. Life with such a bias can hardly be very happy.