I agree the State cannot morally execute someone based on your reasoning, and the fact that the State tends to stack the deck against anyone accused of a crime, such that the conviction rate is absurd.
With that said, I think you go too far saying the only reason to execute a murdered is vengeance. Historically, people have seen the execution of a murdered as protection for the rest of society as well.
Let's say, in your example, that Jim's widow decided to forgive Bob and let him off the hook. How is Rick, Jim's neighbor, going to feel about Bob roaming around after dark while Rick's wife and daughters are at home asleep? If we as people are going to live together, there has to be some sort of moral code we can all agree to, and if someone violates that code, there must be repercussions.
I don't like the State, and I sure wish we could do away with it, but at this point what is the alternative? Is it morally better to kill a child murderer or to let them go free, with the potential to murder another child? Who sleeps better at night?
Just some thoughts... I don't have the answers, but maybe that's why the Bible says vengeance is God's. If we are executing people, it should be with public welfare in mind, not vengeance.
Even if Jim's widow chooses forgiveness, Bob still must live with the consequences of his choice. No one is going to trust him. Other people are free to consider him a trespasser, deny trade, and otherwise ostracize him from society. A merciful victim does not guarantee an easy life.
I think you're assuming there would be a way to warn everyone about Bob. What if Bob just goes to another town to rape and murder? Society isn't a bubble we all live in, it's much bigger and more complex.
People get murdered everyday in places like Chicago, Detroit, New York, etc. If there weren't any way to prevent them from re-offending, then what's to stop them from moving to Kansas? People in Kansas aren't going to know anything about Bob's past. For that matter, people on the other side of a large city aren't.
I really like the idea of Anarcho-capitalism, but social ostracism is a poor prevention to re-offending. The world is a big place.
Some people are violent abusers, and ostracism isn't going to stop them.
It is precisely because society is large and complex that no central authority can administer anything. Yes, Bob could leave. But people would be free to publicize his actions, and especially in the modern era, he could be brought to public attention. On the other hand, he could move away and start over with a clean slave to lead an honest life.
People do get murdered every day, especially in cities with the strongest police presence and strictest laws. These murders are rarely investigated and solved. Government presents no solution to the problem, and even increases violence through its prohibitions and economic meddling.
Well, I applaud your positive opinion of Bob and the other murderers. I sure don't think that the evil men in the world are going to rehabilitate because a few people call them out on their BS, but I could be wrong.
I'm not arguing for a centralized government, so I'm not sure what your point was, there. I'm thinking more along the lines of local courts, and such. There needs to be some way of removing the predatory element from society, unless you think they'll all disappear when Adam Kokesh abolishes the Federal government.
The problem I see is that every anarchist I run across wants to blame the state for every violent action, but isn't offering any real solutions to the REAL problem of human tendency to violently oppress and otherwise take advantage of one another.
However, I think I'm ready to give anarchy a shot, because I do think the system we have now is totally corrupt. I'm just waiting to hear some solutions, not just wishful thinking.
I enjoyed the conversation, thanks.