Tax protestor and political rhetoric aside, I’m hoping that the intent of my question is clear. We are talking about acts that are clearly considered improper both legally and socially in most areas of the world. We aren’t talking about some tax protestor argument, but about fundamental societal rules. For example, is there any jurisdiction where I can just burglarize homes to my heart’s content and anything I can walk off with legally becomes my property until your little sister’s first boyfriend’s cousin’s former roommate’s son’s first grade teacher robs me at gunpoint and claims legal ownership of the stuff because I failed in defending it and am thus unworthy to own it?
Again, we are not talking about “tax as theft” arguments or other similar political protests. We are talking about acts that many people (though, not necessarily all) would consider to be fundamentally antisocial. Also, remember that we are talking about theoretical legality, rather than cases where an act is technically illegal but it is widely tolerated in practice by police, prosecutors, or judges.
Is the final answer going to be that there is not one single jurisdiction in all the world where it is legal to live a pirate’s life, or where the “law of the jungle” is the fundamental substantive law in force in the jurisdiction?
Most countries only allow their governments and government officers to kill their citizens in cases of great emergency, such as law enforcement officers killing the perpetrator of a crime to save an innocent third person at risk while the crime is in progress. Other than such cases, once the perpetrator has been captured and cannot harm another person, it would be murder for the state’s officers to kill that person. State officers in those countries cannot kill persons in their custody. That is a fundamental societal rule, covered by the same criminal law as any other murder.
However, in some countries, the government’s officers are legally authorised to kill a person in custody who has been convicted of certain crimes, even if that person does not pose any immediate threat to another person.
Do you mean the Death Penalty? It’s an interesting thought and I’m aware that there are many countries that do oppose it nowadays, but it has a time-honored history and it is legal in the US, used to be legal in the UK and was perfectly legal in many ancient nations like Rome. According to the Bible, God prescribed or allowed the death penalty for certain criminal offenses committed in the ancient Israelite nation or by citizens of it.
Yes. The fact that it has a long history, may have biblical support in the past, etc. aren’t really relevant to the discussion, since the question as I understood it was an actual difference in the laws. Plus, those exact same comments could apply to previously legal matters such as slavery.
It seems that this thread may be in the process of trainwrecking into a political debate. I’m going to stop posting here for a while and am going to modify/clarify my question as such:
Is there any jurisdiction where it is substantively legal (not just tolerated) for a private person to arbitrarily deprive another of property, outside of normal tax collection, lawful garnishments to satisfy judgments, etc., to such an extent that private property has no protection in law whatsoever and any person wishing to keep private property must defend it personally. E.g. a jurisdiction where literally anyone can just up and walk off with your stuff and the law will not get involved because private property rights are simply not recognized outside the context of actual possession.
Is there any jurisdiction where it is substantively legal (not just tolerated) for a private person to arbitrarily kill another person based on their own desire, or based on the private person’s belief that the target has committed an offense (i.e. an honor killing), outside of the context of self defense against imminent harm, employment as a police officer, soldier, or other official explicitly authorized to kill as part of their job, or specific governmental order directing a specific person to be killed? E.g. a jurisdiction where J. Random Citizen, a private citizen who is not a government official of any type, can privately conclude that P. Rudeface has committed adultery with Citizen’s spouse and may privately put a bullet in Rudeface’s head without first reporting this to the police or obtaining specific authorization to proceed with the killing because Citizen possesses the right to make the judgement call himself and execute justice without getting the police, courts, or legislature involved in determining guilt or determining the proper penalty.
Is there any jurisdiction where it is substantively legal (not just tolerated) to force sexual activity (I will refrain from using the word “rape” lest someone reply and claim that if it isn’t illegal, it technically isn’t “rape”) on someone who is not one’s spouse?
Is there any jurisdiction where the local substantive law is literally “the law of the jungle”? That is, while the area is under the sovereignty of a country, the legislature or other lawmaking body (the lawmakers themselves, not the police deciding not to investigate, prosecutors declining to prosecute, or judges declining to hear cases) has decided that the area shall not be subject to regulation.
I’m thinking that this place might be a recent historical example, but I’m not sure to what extent the lawlessness was due to a lack of substantive law and to what extent it was a practical matter related to difficulty or lack of interest in enforcement measures.
Bride kidnapping still occurs throughout the world and is even on the rise in areas such as Central Asia and China. Most governments (but not all) have outlawed bride kidnapping, but it is frequently not pursued as a crime by the authorities.
What about the Amazon Jungle areas of Brazil? I know that there are areas that are set aside for the protection of “primitive” peoples. What is the legal status of such areas? Are there any law-enforcing bodies competant to investigate crimes that might occur in such areas?
Wiki says this about the Frontier Crimes Regulations, is it wrong?
“It permits punishment to be meted out by unelected tribal jirgas and denies the accused the right to trial by judiciary.”
“The regulation denies those convicted of an offence by a tribal jirga the right to appeal their conviction in any court.”
So if your Tribal Jirga decides that your killing was actually a Badal honorable killing there is no court of appeal.