Feuding is discussed in at least three of the legal system chapters and feud as a form of law enforcement is the subject of its own chapter.

Graham:

Do you have figures on the execution rate in 18th century England? While it’s true that almost all serious crimes were in theory capital, it looks as though only a small fraction of those charged with capital crimes actually ended up being hanged.

For anyone else interested, note that Scott linked to a draft from about five years ago. The current draft is webbed at:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsContents.htm

Friedman suggests that this was not taken up en massed because it was not cost effective, not even at the margins the way the French system was with the galleys and some related facilities.

That chapter is full of good stuff on the pros and cons of the system, especially for a society that even by period standards was dogmatically small-government. Even the relatively weak abilities of the ancien regime French state were deemed over the top tyrannical by the British of the day. Also, they would have cost money. One thing he does not address too much is enforcement in extreme situations. Lacking professional constables of a police force as we know them, the sheriffs had court officers like bailiffs and wardens and could form a posse in the classic style, in public order situations or to find a fugitive could call out yeomanry [mounted militia] or in real extremis could call on local regular military if within his county. He may have had to ask the county Lieutenant to do that. But the military CO could not normally refuse [one of the bases for the much later Posse Comitatus Act in the US].

There is limited general literature on the problems military personnel could face if called on to perform law enforcement duties. If the Riot Act had been read, they had wide latitude. If not, they had strictures that seem harsh and arbitrary even by today’s standards. It would be very easy for a soldier to get charged with murder himself even where his actions might seem reasonable under the circumstances.

One of Allan Mallinson’s recent Hervey novels takes up those latter concerns in passing and runs with them for a while.

Exile needs to be brought back and applied liberally. If we wont execute men properly and remove them from the gene pool, exile can serve the same purpose. The negative externalities of the criminal class are piling up.

Whether or not allowing the relatives of criminals in a place like the US to administer justice against their kin would work is less clear. They’d need to exist in a societal framework in which failure to satisfy others’ definition of justice would bring punishment down on those kinfolk. Some communities in the US might well be both capable and motivated to do this, because they already exist in balance of power situations with rival communities. Or they might just make sure to only prey on members of American society who don’t have the kin-networks or intestinal fortitude to back up their claims.

The point about the rarity of incarceration in many societies [even quiet advanced polities like the Romans- they probably could have built and run the infrastructure but had by our standards a small-government empire and seemed to abhor the idea of long term imprisonment] is well taken. Long term imprisonment is expensive in resources and effort. Easier to use fines, exile [including permanent], corporal punishment or capital punishment. It gives society options. Even if your society maintains an establishment of public courts and related officers, it might be able to do without regular police or jailers.

The obvious answer to this one is that Pinker is full of shit. As for 100 camels, I haven’t read Friedman’s book or the various people’s reviews of it yet, but haven’t they heard of blood feuds? A lot of the fine-for-murder and collect-all-elders-in-a-tent customs developed to curb (and if possible prevent) blood feuds, which can get ugly and out of hand very fast and persist for centuries. The threat of blood feuds (confirmed by experience) is great at deterring violence, almost as good I suppose as is indiscriminate mob violence at suppressing minority militancy. I doubt SSC and his readers would like to live under a regime relying on such threats.