[Epistemologist]

Well, no, I said why it doesn't necessarily lead to that kind of society, because the sentence would be limited.

But one might say that when things--especially killing--are taken out of the hands of the state, power becomes redistributed to smaller units (i.e. from the government to individuals), and then we'd have a bunch of people battling against each other. That would a faulty view, though, because, again, outlawing would be regulated by the government, and families have a choice to let the outlaw go.

Some might also say that there's nothing to stop victim's families from blowing up a bomb in a cafe to kill an outlaw while also making collateral damage, but then I suppose their impunity would be invalidated.

And perhaps the biggest objection to outlawing would be that it seems to take away the "institutionalized" part of the institutionalized killing that's the death penalty; that's basically the only thing that differentiates it from regular murder. But again, the government would still have a major hand in the killing. Perhaps outlawing would just be like offering the victim's family members to be the executioners (without salary) at the criminal's death; in fact, I guess that's what it is.