Very well done! You got me to answer back. I'm a bit upset with myself for engaging on this, to be honest.
Your question is a poison pill logical fallacy. It elides essential detail to channel your interlocutors into your predetermined conclusions. These conclusions are bundled with other assumptions. You might as well ask if torture is ok when you have only 24 hours to stop a planet-busting bomb in which billions will die. It sounds very serious and sober but is fundamentally unserious. Rather than clarifying, these questions are designed, intentionally, to prompt dramatic, emotional answers.
Answering "well of course in the very unlikely scenario you describe, we should [execute|torture|sentence-to-life-plus-cancer]" and then the slippery-slope chipping begins, leading inevitably to "well, sure execution can be useful to deter bread-stealing".
It might help your case if you, first of all, abandon that kind of rhetorical trickery, really define your terms and then grapple with the edge cases yourself, such as:
What do you mean by exile? How is that different from jail? Is exile permanent? What happens during exile? Can someone earn a living? Are they physically safe?
Who is a "dangerous sociopath"? Is it someone who is predisposed to violent behavior and is completely resistant to any intervention? What interventions were tried? Medication? Gene therapy? Hormones? Threats of exile and death?
What did this dangerous sociopath do? What defines her as a sociopath in this case? No expression of remorse? What if the expression of remorse is fake? What if it is real but comes off as fake?
What about the case of someone who robs her adoptive parents? What if the parents had inflicted 20 years of horrific abuse? What if the abuse were sexual? What if her abuse were filmed for distribution? What if she murdered them? What if the murder were accidental, occurring in the course of the robbery? What if she asked her boyfriend to help? What if the adoptive daughter and boyfriend are themselves loving and caring parents? What to do with their children? Should the children also go into exile? Should the children also be executed, as fruit of a poisoned womb?
What about false accusations? What about prosecutorial misconduct? What about the case of stealing food to feed a starving child? What about when something that you think is beneficial to society is redefined as a crime? What happens when "dangerous sociopathy" is redefined in political terms to control political opposition?
What if, in order to address these issues, a well-meaning judge had only "Death. Or exile!"
Your question is a poison pill logical fallacy. It elides essential detail to channel your interlocutors into your predetermined conclusions. These conclusions are bundled with other assumptions. You might as well ask if torture is ok when you have only 24 hours to stop a planet-busting bomb in which billions will die. It sounds very serious and sober but is fundamentally unserious. Rather than clarifying, these questions are designed, intentionally, to prompt dramatic, emotional answers.
Answering "well of course in the very unlikely scenario you describe, we should [execute|torture|sentence-to-life-plus-cancer]" and then the slippery-slope chipping begins, leading inevitably to "well, sure execution can be useful to deter bread-stealing".
It might help your case if you, first of all, abandon that kind of rhetorical trickery, really define your terms and then grapple with the edge cases yourself, such as:
What do you mean by exile? How is that different from jail? Is exile permanent? What happens during exile? Can someone earn a living? Are they physically safe?
Who is a "dangerous sociopath"? Is it someone who is predisposed to violent behavior and is completely resistant to any intervention? What interventions were tried? Medication? Gene therapy? Hormones? Threats of exile and death?
What did this dangerous sociopath do? What defines her as a sociopath in this case? No expression of remorse? What if the expression of remorse is fake? What if it is real but comes off as fake?
What about the case of someone who robs her adoptive parents? What if the parents had inflicted 20 years of horrific abuse? What if the abuse were sexual? What if her abuse were filmed for distribution? What if she murdered them? What if the murder were accidental, occurring in the course of the robbery? What if she asked her boyfriend to help? What if the adoptive daughter and boyfriend are themselves loving and caring parents? What to do with their children? Should the children also go into exile? Should the children also be executed, as fruit of a poisoned womb?
What about false accusations? What about prosecutorial misconduct? What about the case of stealing food to feed a starving child? What about when something that you think is beneficial to society is redefined as a crime? What happens when "dangerous sociopathy" is redefined in political terms to control political opposition?
What if, in order to address these issues, a well-meaning judge had only "Death. Or exile!"