Exile to a country that will take him, not to a desert isle

No. And here's why, the death penalty does one thing better than any other punishment: stop recidivism.
The number of murders and rapists who kill or rape again while in prison or immediately after being "reformed" and released from prison is staggering.
So if a crime is worthy of death? Banishment pales in comparison. What stops them from just killing again while in timbuktu or wherever?

Strong point. My first thought is that foreign countries probably won't take a proven murderer or rapist in the first place, in which case he would be forced to choose between execution, prison, or abandonment far enough from society that he could never return.

I had in mind that this could be used more for controversial cases in which one country's government may believe the person is innocent or should be spared for whatever reason. It would be up to other countries whether to and how to take in certain people. One country may offer a life sentence with some job he has to work in the prison to subsidize his stay. Another may offer freedom on probation of some king. Another may not take him at all. If someone has access to classified documents by virtue of position and commits espionage by leaking them like Edward Snowden did, he could cause no future harm if he has no access to future documents, so a country may be willing to take him but ban him from high-risk positions.

The reason I suggest this isn't because I believe that murders or rapists should be granted a second chance. I ask because I don't trust the government with the power over its citizens' lives. What if a puppet congress of a dictator declares that dissent toward military actions is treasonous and make an example by executing people who speak out against them at all during war?

I like that interpretation of capital punishment.
But the only people I know who ever get the death sentence are the repeat offenders and they always kill again.
Maybe exile them to a country that doesn't care if you're hardened criminal? Don't know where that would be.

Idk. I'm just spitballing random stuff trying to figure out how a stable libertarian society could be built.

Napoleon came back from his first exile and started another war XD

Napoleon was removed by a foreign country, not sentenced by his own. That's why he still had enough of a following in his home country. For the hundred days to happen.

But an exile isn't going to be effective

whoops, double clicked spacebar after country

Do you mean Australia 2.0?

Lol

That kind of just seems like a way to get around it and it wouldn't have the same effect at all

What's the effect supposed to be?

Deterrent. If people know the consequence of something is death, they're less likely to do it.
And it's a matter of justice as well.

Should the government have the level of power they need to kill citizens? What if they abuse it?

Yeah
Every power can be abused, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, it just means we should make sure the right people have the power

That can never be a guarantee. The power must have limits so the wrong person that will eventually come into power is not capable of becoming a dictator.

I don't have a problem with the death penalty. In my philosophy, if you take someone else's life, you lose your right to live and you deserve to die.
Not that I actively seek to institute it, but I don't think it's inhumane.

True. I was worried more about the government power aspect.

interesting short story that covers something similar to this

Anton Chekov, "The Bet"

you should check it out

i meant *Anton Chekhov

:)

Yes, but nobody will take a proven criminal who did something bad enough to be sentenced to death

In that case, couldn't he at least choose to keep his life and live in true exile on a desert isle. A murderer has no place in society, but should we trust any government to end the life of a citizen?

I don't trust the government with my life either, but
A: Islands big enough to survive on are pretty much all owned by countries anyway, so its a death sentence nonetheless
B: Just jail them for life

Could an island be set apart for it, though?

As for prison, isn't total removal of agency as bad as death? The island could at least be a way to allow some limited freedom without burdening the society he was from.

Unless the prison is supermax, there is still some limited freedom without burdening society. The prison, unless you killed a large group of people, can also be left, assuming the inmate was properly rehabilitated, and not whatever they do in the US

Fair

My view on the matter is that prisoners with life sentences or death sentences should have a choice between a lifetime of community service or death. why should we keep people alive who have committed the worst crime imaginable if they aren't willing to contribute to society.

I think the death penalty is more suitable. but even then, it is in the genetic code of humans to kill and cheat, our modern-day world is strange, never has a being gotten so powerful so quickly. our brains are still primitive, so we do not really understand these concepts. the death penalty is better because they deserve it, and they will never do it again