Why should the victim’s family be forced to pay the murderer (free room and board in jail)? 

 No one said they would be. That's an assumption, and a straw man argument. And you must either read 10x faster than me, or you didn't read my note and opted to skip to this brainless response. Shame on you for all three things. You must be quite a specimen. 

 If you put a murderer in prison- the victims families will help pay for their food with their taxes. 

That is unjust on its face 

 This is incorrect. The negatively affected parties are paid compensation. If the murderer isn't able to pay, society pays. Its worth it. I an as anarcho capitalist as anyone, but that doesn't mean we stop having a court system. You can find all sorts of ways of paying for it, it doesn't have to be taxes. But if any tax is justified, its the tax that pays for the judicial system. 

 Also retard you don’t seem to understand crime- there are punishments and levies that are Just when the jury demands it of the criminal. 

The murderer is no longer a free person after they (proven with jury trial) aggressed against the free person and ended their life intentionally. 

 You are 100℅ a genuine psychopath. You respond with name calling after refusing to read a detailed argument. Clearly you love the death penalty because it provides moral camouflage for your desire to commit murder. There are a lot of people like you. 

 Just let me know where to send the bill for prison expenses since you are volunteering to pay for it 😇 

 Psychopathy simply means "mental disease" - 'psych' = mind, 'pathy' = illness. Its probably a spectrum, and probably everyone is a little bit messed up in the head. I do think that stronger meaning of the word applies to people who advocate the death penalty. Maybe some people simply haven't thought it through, but I don't think most people fall into that category.

> I live in the US, and I would emphatically argue that there is no justice in our court system, for many reasons.

I am 100% with you. The way we do it is unjust. I don't think that means that a group putting people to death is unjust though, as I'll explain later, I just think we need a better way of doing it and better reasoning about when it's warranted.

> First, as someone already wrote, if an individual doesn't have the right to kill, for any reason, then a group cannot magically have the right to kill by virtue of being a group or having some higher status.

 An individual does have the right to kill though in some circumstances.

> Second, no human is perfect. If no individual is perfect, then no group is perfect. Their judgement may be wrong. Evidence and testimony may be faked. Incentives may reward them for judging wrongly. Power structures may be threatened, and the politics may demand the death of an innocent. None of these possibilities can be ruled out.

Yup, which is why I agree with you that putting people to death the way our society does it is wrong.

> Even if you know absolutely that they did it, its still wrong to kill them. 

I am in complete disagreement with you about this. I reason that if someone is a threat to the safety those around them and will continue to be, it is just for a group to kill them.

> Incentive structures are generally out of our control, and they work in positive and negative ways, and they work in both the short and long term. For example, the current monetary system of usury and perpetually devaluing money causes some amount of stress in people. How much stress? Impossible to know. It affects different people differently, and social emergent phenomena could amplify stress more on particular people, and those people will be more likely to break and do something violent. Entire belief structures are built around compensating for felt oppression. For example, both the state and religion are belief structures that relieve people's anxiety - these social structures emerge from fear. And both the state and religion cause people to kill, and they will never define such killing as murder. But would these structures even exist without the constant application of stress on people, subconsciously felt, from the devaluing of people's savings and work? You can see that, at least partially, incentive structures are self perpetuating cycles. The things that motivate behavior are mostly subconscious and out of an individual's control. Its not simply, "he decided to kill, he's just bad." That doesn't exist. That's a fantasy. And if justice boils down to such a simplistic view on behavior, then there's no hope of ever having 'justice.'

There's a lot going on here. I think you're right, there are plenty of social structures that make people behave erratically and violently, often they convince themselves they are justified when they're not. But in the world, we still can't let those people run wild. They present a danger *now.* Ultimately we have to hold individuals responsible for their behavior, and then we have to fix those other issues separate from that. 

> This is too long already. I'll reiterate that the death penalty is wrong, and say that there are other options. And I'll reiterate that someone who thinks society should repay murder with murder is a psychopath. Definitely.

I can say, when I talk about the death penalty, I'm saying that when a group is threatened by an individual, either by words or demonstration of intent with action, that group has a right to neutralize that threat. So it's not really repayment, not a penalty by my reasoning, it's more of a self defense measure. But I do believe that groups killing individuals is just in such a scenario. 

 Why can't we just put a wall around the state of New Jersey and throw the convicts in there? Technically a prison, but we don't need to pay all the upkeep of a prison, beyond making sure the wall isn't breached. The land is decent enough that they can grow food. Its not killing, and it removes them from society. And it fixes the problem of New Jersey existing. That shithole is an embarrassment and should be put to better use.

My point is, all the reasons for killing are moot while there are other options. 

The reasons you mention for killing sometimes being justified are really only two scenarios. Self defense and rebellion against oppression. And this is why IMO we should stop violating the 2nd Amendment. Those two scenarios don't carry over to the justice system. Justice is only administered with the defendant in custody, which means they don't pose a threat. The threat is neutralized. Justice can't be revenge. 

 I'd add a third scenario, vengeance.

You're talking about exile now, which I also think is justified. But now you've got to consider, is it just to put someone in a cage with monsters? If it's not just to kill someone for being bad to those around them, it's certainly not just to lock them in a cage with people who will prey on them, that's more akin to torture.

If someone is damaged in some way to the point where they present mortal danger to those around them, it is unjust to subject anyone to that behavior, even another like them.

I have some very unpopular views on this topic, and some popular ones, but I've thought a lot about it and I think I understand pretty clearly what a just justice system would look like, and it doesn't preclude the death penalty, or other corporal punishment, but it does preclude prison. 

 Exile, imprisonment, forced servitude as a monk while getting to know God... Doesn't matter. Imagine whatever. The only bottom line is that murder is wrong, for several reasons - its so wrong that its wrong from multiple viewpoints. Don't do it. The state is definitely committing murder when it executes someone because that person is already in custody. Not a threat. They are under control. So a jury deciding to kill them is no different than you colluding with your buddy to kidnap someone and then murder them. Its the exact same scenario. You and your bud may think you're entirely justified. Its the same.  

 Well, I think imprisonment is cruel and unjust, but aside that, you and I have already agreed that killing someone in self defense is just, and you haven't actually responded to my reasoning at all. You're reiterating your position, which is fine but doesn't lend itself well to fruitful discussion.

A jury, the state, all that I can agree with. That doesn't mean though that a group putting someone to death is always unjust, just that our mechanisms for doing it are.

I'd argue that me and my buddy deciding to go grab someone and kill them for, say for example, killing my cousin or raping my nephew or threatening to do so is entirely just. 

 Which part haven't I responded to? I'll do my best. 

 Well, youre saying "bottom line murder is wrong", I'm saying it's not always murder, we seem to be in agreement on that. You're saying when the state does it they commit injustice because of the process by which they do it, I'm in agreement with you. But you keep making those same points which aren't in contention at all and which we have already addressed. 

 I think I used up all my brain cells this morning. Anyways... I can respect that you read everything and still disagree.  

 A jury is explicitly not the state. 

We haven’t had real juries for a long time. 

My entire argument about death sentence rests on first restoring the true jury trial. 

https://mises.org/library/book/lets-abolish-government 

 I am not an expert but the difference between death penalty and abortion is that there must be a trial of the accused by a jury of their peers. 

How many babies would condemn an unborn child to death? The baby is obviously innocent and thus it could be called murder. However the woman and “doctors” who commit it could only be “punished” by an honorable accusation and a jury of their peers. 

The thing is we don’t have a proper legal system right now 

Jury trial isn’t being respected in its true form. 

https://mises.org/library/book/lets-abolish-government 

 I agree with you, but here, we are talking about the legal process by which the person is given the death penalty. That can be unjust even if the death penalty itself is justified when used in a just manner.

Let's take it to first principles. If a guy walks up to you and tells you "I am going to kill you if you don't kill me first" do you have a right to kill him? I'd say yes, what do you think?

Now, you and a group of people are hanging out. Some guy walks up to you guys and said "I'm going to kill one of you, I promise." Do you as a group have the right to kill him? Again, I'd say yes.

We can take that and do this thought experiment and find where it stops being justified. The man says "I'm going to rape all your kids and I won't stop until I'm dead", he doesn't say it verbally but demonstrates it with his behavior, etc. Then, what qualifies as a group? Does a jury that is part of the group qualify? You'll find plenty of scenarios where it is not done in a just manner, or when what someone is going to do if left to their own behavior doesn't justify killing them, but you'll find plenty of scenarios where it is justified. Therefore, the death penalty is just, even if the way it is done in our society is unjust. 

 To your first question, I would have to say no, because a threat of violence (even if backed with a promise) is still just words. One step further, if that threat was then followed by the person punching you in the face, I do not think it is moral to kill (disproportionate reponse...one can only morally kill another human if the person is in danger of being killed himself). If a gun is being drawn, now the situation has shifted to life-threatening and one has a right to protect life (so admitedly, we get into difficult territory delineated exactly where the threat against life precisely occurs, I think this area is ripe for debate and certainly different people perceive threats in varying degrees).

To your second question, essentially my answer above applies although now, with multiple people acting with varying threat perceptions the entire situation has become more difficult to summarize (if that makes sense?)

In the rape example, if the person is actually doing the act, witnesses to the act can morally take increasingly aggressive action toward the perpetrator to the point at which the violation ends. Again, the verbiage "raping until death" consitutes a threat, and is not the same as the act of killing, therefore it is not moral to automatically kill a human in the process of raping (even though it may feel like the "right" thing (emotionally) to do). The rapist should be stopped and penalized proportionately (certainly another area of discussion).

All of the above is not to be lenient on violence shitbags that want to harm innocent people. These individuals should face penalty proportionate to their crimes, but I do not think pre-meditated murder by uneffected agents acting on behalf of the state is proportionate. Additionally, given our highly flawed/corrupt legal and political systems, we need to be careful not to use the mechanism of state-sanctioned violence to kill innocents that manage to get caught-up in the someone elses' crime drama. I always come back to the thought, "What is the maximum number of innocent lives lost (to be clear - false conviction ending in death penalty) I am willing to accept before deciding that the death penalty is not a moral choice of state-sanctioned penalty?" I always land on 0 for this question. 

 
> ...I do not think pre-meditated murder by uneffected agents acting on behalf of the state is proportionate.

I'm 100% with you. The way it's done in our society is unjust. But what I'm trying to get at is, if putting people to death is fundamentally unjust. Most people I've talked to that are opposed to it tie the two inseparably and it clouds the morality of the fundamental question.

As far as your other points, I disagree entirely. Any credible threat of violence can be met with whatever preventative measures the potential victims warrant appropriate. I don't have to wait til I'm about to be killed to protect myself, if I know an attempt on my life is impending I can justifiably act.