[quote] I would say no. It's my property, and time doesn't change that. The response to a crime does not have to become less severe over time. Let's apply this idea to another situation.[/quote] You have made a mistake here; put simply people aren't bikes. You have convoluted a defence of the two. More specifically, a specific law as it applies to people (I.E. a right to property) is not the same as a legal enforcement of punishment or an act of self-defence. Here is why: Self-defence is a justification of a criminal act (I.E. Homicide) based on the grounds of necessity; you must prove that your life was in danger (critically), or that you had a legitimate belief of such, and that the person responsible for said belief had the capacity to carry out such harm. If the person has moved on and is no longer in a position to harm you, there is no legitimate threat posed - here there is room for an argument of a perceived threat of mental/psychological trauma. So if a person pulled a knife out and robbed you, you would not [i][b]legally[/b][/i] be able to use self-defence as a justification for hunting them down 3 weeks later, approaching them, and ripping their throat out (Roadhouse-style). As for [i][b]morally[/b][/i] why this comparison is poor, well unlike bikes, people change in an epistemological sense. People have identities, bikes do not. Your bike (property) will remain yours unless it is legally transferred, sold, or reclaimed. People however, change their ideals, behaviours, etc. throughout the course of their lives. Depending on your definition of self (and identity), you may not even be punishing the same person depending on the interval between crime and punishment. Alternatively, ending a person's life eliminates all future actions of the person. A simple thought experiment: Person A commits a crime when they are 18 years old, at 21 they commit a second and third crime and are punished. If the death penalty is used, no further actions are taken. If the death penalty is not used, you can click the spoiler (note: unlike on the forums, we don't have access to such information at the time the choice is made). [spoiler] At age 42, the person saves a bus full of children[/spoiler] Since as humans we are limited, utilitarian calculus such as this is not possible in a morally reliable way. So while retribution for an action may seem desirable, it may end up doing more harm in the long run.