No fancy introduction on this one. I'm going to pose an argument. I own a bike. If a man steals that bike, I can rightfully take it back immediately. Can I take the bike back three weeks later, if I see it leaned up against the curb (assuming that I was unable to get it back as soon as it was stolen)? I certainly can. It's still my property. Is there any amount of time that can pass that would make it morally impermissible for me to repossess my bike? 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. A man attempts to kill a woman. Let's assume that deadly force becomes a reasonable response for the woman to take. In that instance, she can rightfully kill the man. This is to say that the man has forfeit his right to life. He can rightfully die because of his own initiation of force. Three weeks later, does the man still deserve to die? I would argue that he does. His right to life isn't magically restored over time. There's no logical basis for that. No amount of time could pass where the man (assuming that he escapes all forms of retribution) suddenly doesn't deserve to die. Discuss. Feel free to discuss the death penalty in general. It doesn't have to be confined to my example regarding moral permission.